Deferred Profit Sharing Plan DPSP: What It Is and How It Works

Many people argue that DPSPs are useless because of its non-justiciability but we need to understand that these are not only the guiding principles but also lay down the broad objectives and ideals that India strives to achieve. It’s important to note that while DPSPs have faced criticism, they remain an integral part of the Indian Constitution and play a significant role in shaping government policies and actions. Many proponents argue that they provide essential moral and political guidance, even if they are not legally enforceable, and serve as a reminder of the state’s duty to work towards a just and equitable society. Unlike Fundamental Rights, which are justiciable and can be enforced in courts, DPSPs are non-justiciable. This means that individuals cannot directly approach courts for their enforcement. However, DPSP provides guiding principles to the state in formulating policies and legislation.

Multiple Supreme Court judgements have given importance to DPSPs in the past, arguing that they give meaning to Fundamental Rights and the two should be harmonised and balanced if they were to maintain social order and empower people. The State shall endeavor to provide, within ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years. The State shall make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. The State shall take steps to organize village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government. The question that whether Fundamental Rights precedes DPSPs or latter takes precedence over former has been the subject of debate for years.

The Supreme Court was of the view in Madras vs. Champakan[1], that if a law violates a constitutional right, it would be invalid, but the DPSPs will not be the same. Since India achieved independence, the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) have been in high fashion. The bone of disagreement in the litigation has always been its violation of Human Rights (FR). A moot point in India’s judicial process is always the non-justifiability of DPSPs. The anti-justiciable aspect of the Constitution is DPSPs, which means that an individual in the Court will not impose them.

Deferred profit sharing plans (DPSPs) are a type of employer-sponsored retirement savings plan offered by some employers in Canada. DPSPs can be funded only by employers, and the money in them grows on a tax-deferred basis until the employee eventually withdraws it. In the case of Kesavananda Bharathi in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution. As mentioned earlier, the second clause of Article 31(C) was declared unconstitutional and void as it went against the basic structure.

Directive Principles aim to establish a just and welfare-oriented society and are inspired by the socio-economic and political philosophy of the Indian Constitution. While Fundamental Rights focus on individual rights and liberties, DPSP emphasises the goals and principles the state should strive to achieve in the social and economic spheres. This Article tries to prove that the relevance and significance of DPSPs cannot be overlooked only on the basis of its non-justiciability.

1. He currently researches and teaches economic sociology and the social studies of finance at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
2. He said that there were various ways and schools of thought to achieve this idea, because of which Directive Principles were not made to be “rigid” or enforceable by law, but fundamental to governance.
3. They added this part to meet the main objectives and the ultimate goal of a country.
4. The state is expected to make reasonable efforts to progressively fulfil these principles, considering its financial capacity and socio-economic conditions.

He currently researches and teaches economic sociology and the social studies of finance at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The justiciable rights, as we know, are the Fundamental rights, whereas the non-justiciable ones are the Directive Principles of State Policy. Articles under Part-IV of the Indian Constitution deal with Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). They are borrowed from the Constitution of Ireland, which had copied it from the Spanish Constitution.

Enforceability of DPSPs

Fundamental Rights are the legal obligation of the state to respect, whereas the DPSPs is the moral obligation of the state to follow. The Preamble of the Constitution is called the key to the mind of the drafters of the Constitution. The Directive Principles of the State Policy (DPSPs) lay down the guidelines for the state and are reflections of the overall objectives laid down in the Preamble of Constitution. The expression “Justice- social, economic, political” is sought to be achieved through DPSPs.

Directive Principles of State Policy: Theory and Practice

According to the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, the Constitution’s provisions should be interpreted and constituted to allow Fundamental Rights and DPSP to work in harmony, avoiding conflicts between them. The court aims to construe each provision of the Constitution so they can function together seamlessly. To better understand the conflict between Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Rights, let’s examine some important case laws that shed light on the matter. By studying these cases, we can determine what happens when a conflict arises between DPSP and Fundamental Rights. Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said in August last year that while 35 crore children were getting educated in schools, there was a whopping 15 crore out-of-school children in the country.

What are Directive Principles of State Policies?

The state is expected to make reasonable efforts to progressively fulfil these principles, considering its financial capacity and socio-economic conditions. In the case of Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of Directive Principles in the country’s governance, emphasising that equal importance should be given to the meaning and concept of Fundamental Rights. In dpsps the case of Pathumma vs the State of Kerala in 1978, the Supreme Court emphasised the purpose of DPSP, which is to achieve certain social-economic goals. The Constitution aims to strike a balance and create a combination between DPSP and Fundamental Rights, a principle reflected in several other cases. Moving on to the case of the Kerala Education Bill, the Supreme Court introduced the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction.

Previously, protection was given to all Directive Principles, but after this case, such protection was restricted. It was declared that protecting all Directive Principles would render them void and unconstitutional. However, suppose a conflict arises due to the court’s interpretation of a particular law. In that case, the court should make efforts to give effect to both Fundamental Rights and DPSP as much as possible.

Post-independence there have been number of amendments to the constitution and some of them are pertaining to https://1investing.in/. In the end, all of the other laws and regulations aim to accomplish the aims and values set out in Article 38, i.e., the establishment of a benefits system. A Constitutional amendment is necessary in order to change the Directive Principles of State Policies. There have been several changes to the constitution post-independence, and several of them refer to DPSPs. The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of
personal laws across…

Courts often consider DPSPs while interpreting and applying Fundamental Rights, seeking a harmonious balance between these two aspects of the Constitution. Some of these principles were also translated in the early years of Independence such as the separation of the judiciary from the executive and the setting up of village panchayats. Maternal welfare schemes have also been launched, fulfilling some of the mandates of the DPSPs. While in the case of States doling out freebies to influence the electorate, experts have said that India could face the prospect of sub-national bankruptcies.

The chairperson of the 15th Fifteenth Finance Commission, NK Singh, recently said that ‘cheap’ freebies are expensive for the economy, quality of life, and social cohesion over the long run. Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said, days before August 15, that there has to be a final disciple to freebies and they cannot be called welfare schemes. The debate over welfare schemes versus “freebies” is not a new one and has raged for decades. Multiple governments have enacted welfare schemes such as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), the national public distribution scheme, the Mid-day Meal Scheme, the Food Security Act, and farm and gas subsidies. Dr. Ambedkar said in the Constituent Assembly debates that while we had established a political democracy upon gaining independence, “it was also the desire that we lay down economic democracy as our ideal” and give direction as to what our social order ought to be like. He said that there were various ways and schools of thought to achieve this idea, because of which Directive Principles were not made to be “rigid” or enforceable by law, but fundamental to governance.

Directive Principles of State Policy are a set of guidelines or principles enshrined in Part IV (Articles 36 to 51) of the Constitution of India. Unlike fundamental rights, which are justiciable and can be enforced by the courts, Directive Principles are non-justiciable. This means that they are not legally enforceable by the courts, but they serve as important guidelines for the government in formulating policies and laws.