The member of then Constituent Assembly of India and the citizen of the country claim that the Indian constitution is the most comprehensive and elaborate one safeguarding and protecting the rights and lawful freedom of its citizen. The constitution had been adopted with all jubilation because of its compendium inserting preamble, fundamental rights, remedies, secularism and directive principles of state Policy. The state means both Sovereign and provincial.
The directive principles of the State Policy is provided in part IV; Chapter XV of the Constitution from Articles 36-51. These directive Principles is paramount and fundamental in governance both in legislation and day to day administration albeit its wrong-doing and failures are not enforceable (non-justiciable) in the Court of Law. It is therefore considered this part of Constitution as volatile mortal turpitude to impress upon for political master and their bureaucrats.
The hallmark of the principles on line are as follows:
1. The state shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively, as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political hall inform all the institution of the national life.
2. The state shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only among individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocation.
3. The state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:-
a. that the citizen, men and women equally have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;
b. that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;
c. that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of produce to the common detriment;
d. that there is equal pay for equal work both men and women;
e. that the state secure the operation of legal system to promote justice basing on rules of law and shall, in particular provide free legal aid to indigent people below poverty line.
May be it is time to introspect and indurate the Provisions after six decades of its adoption whether the ceremonious Principles as adopted is percolated down to the grass root level in action as solemnly declared, or simply remain as a decorated document. Seemingly it may not be irrelevant, to suggest that sign of resentment, controversy and conflict looming upon the people and act of terrorism of Maoists now across the country could have been stem-up as a reflection out of hardship and frustration faced by them as against tall promises and lips service.
As social advance, more such may foment and surface by the turn of time.
Akang Ao, Principal, Kohima Law College.
