The Judicial Process in Pursuit of Constitutional Goals and Values

In one line

The Constitution states what kind of society India is to become, and the question is what a court can properly do to get there.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the constitutional goals and values are the ends the Constitution declares for the Indian polity. They are stated in the Preamble, which resolves to constitute India a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity; in Part III, which makes certain of them enforceable rights; and in Part IV, the directive principles, which Article 37 declares fundamental in the governance of the country and a duty of the State to apply in making laws, though not enforceable by any court. The judicial process pursues them by reading Part III in the light of Part IV, by holding the balance between the two, and by enforcing Part III against the State.

The three sources of the goals

The Preamble. Justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation. It has been held to be part of the Constitution and a key to its interpretation.

Part III. Equality, freedom, life and personal liberty, freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights, and the right to constitutional remedies. Enforceable.

Part IV. Adequate means of livelihood, distribution of material resources to subserve the common good, equal pay, health, free and compulsory education for children, living wage, humane conditions of work, legal aid under Article 39A, uniform civil code under Article 44, separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 50, and protection of the environment under Article 48A. Not enforceable, but fundamental in governance.

How the process pursues them

1. By reading Part III in the light of Part IV. The characteristic Indian technique. Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178, is the model.

Facts. Private unaided professional colleges challenged State legislation regulating capitation fees, and the Court reconsidered how far Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858, had gone in recognising a fundamental right to education.

Held. The right to education flows from the right to life under Article 21, but its content is to be determined in the light of the directive principles in Articles 41, 45 and 46. Every child therefore has a fundamental right to free education up to the age of fourteen years; beyond that age the right is subject to the limits of the State's economic capacity and development. A scheme regulating admissions and fees in private professional colleges was framed.