Article 39 · Directive Principles of State Policy
Text & Meaning of Article 39
Article 39 mandates the State to direct its policies towards securing:
Right to adequate means of livelihood for all citizens, men and women equally.
Ownership and control of material resources distributed to serve the common good.
Operation of economic system does not result in wealth concentration to common detriment.
Equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
Protection of health, strength of workers, men, women, and children against abuse and forced economic vulnerability.
Opportunities for healthy development of children, protection against exploitation and moral abandonment.
Significance: Article 39 embodies the vision of a welfare state — economic democracy, fair distribution, gender justice. Though not enforceable by courts, it forms the bedrock of several social welfare legislations, land reforms, equal remuneration act, and constitutional amendments.
Article 39A: Equal Justice & Free Legal Aid
Inserted by the 42nd Amendment, Article 39A directs the State to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall provide free legal aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. This provision complements the socio-economic vision of Article 39.
Landmark Judgments & Constitutional Evolution
Judicial interpretation has given life to Article 39 despite its directive nature. Key cases that shaped socio-economic jurisprudence:
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Basic structure doctrine; Article 39(b) & (c) cited as essential for establishing egalitarian social order.
- M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996): Child labour abolition — enforced Article 39(e) & (f) through welfare schemes and prohibitions.
- Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982): "Equal pay for equal work" under Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 & 16, enforced as a constitutional goal.
- State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977): Interpreted Article 39(b) "material resources of the community" to include nationalisation, broad social control.
- Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983): Right to livelihood under Article 39(a) and Article 21, ensuring minimum wages in famine relief works.
These judgments show that even though DPSPs are not directly enforceable, courts harmonize them with Fundamental Rights (Part III), making them justiciable indirectly.
Contemporary Relevance & Government Schemes
Article 39 continues to inspire flagship schemes and policy reforms in India:
Article 39(b) and (c) also formed the basis for bank nationalization, land ceiling acts, and the recent debate on welfare state vs. free market — proving its timeless value.
Frequently Asked Questions
Article 39 is part of Directive Principles (Part IV) and is non-justiciable. However, courts have applied its principles to interpret Fundamental Rights (Art. 14, 19, 21) and strike down arbitrary state action.
Article 39(d) provides a constitutional directive for equal pay for equal work for men and women. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, implements this principle legally.
Clauses (e) and (f) mandate that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and moral/material abandonment. It prohibits child labor and ensures free and compulsory education (now RTE Act, 2009).
Directives are primarily binding on the State, but the Supreme Court has often directed private entities to comply with constitutional ethos under Articles 12 & 21, especially in environment, labour and public health matters.
"The State shall strive to minimise inequalities in income and eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities."