Kanchan Gupta is Editorial Director of NiTi Digital. He has worked at several newspapers, including The Telegraph, The Statesman and The Pioneer. During a break from journalism he served in the PMO as an aide to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and as Director of Maulana Azad Centre in Cairo.
Navbharat Times has published an interesting story, headlined “अल्पसंख्यकों को सरकारी सलाह, खून बढ़ाने के लिए खाएं गोमांस” , about a booklet that is being circulated among children in minority-dominated areas of Uttar Pradesh. The booklet, called ‘Poshan’, has apparently been produced by the Ministry of Minority Affairs, headed by K Rahman Khan, in collaboration with the Department of Child Welfare. It urges children to eat green vegetables, chicken and beef to “generate oxygen and blood in the body”. This is possibly the first official, tax-funded promotion of beef in this country.
The Constitution’s Article 48 explicitly states: “The state shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” If the state begins promoting the consumption of beef, it would be violating the Constitution. Such considerations have never stood in the way for the Congress in its pursuit of crass minorityism and pandering to Muslim vote-bank politics. Last year’s Union Budget listed the slaughter of bovine animals as an activity exempted from service tax.
Examples of Congress’s contempt for the Constitution abound. For instance, the Constitution’s Article 44 says “The state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” What the Congress has done, instead, is to reinforce shari’ah through the obnoxious and deceptively titled Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act that was pushed through Parliament by Rajiv Gandhi to overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark judgement in the Shah Bano case.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose – the more things change, the more they remain the same in this wondrous land of ours!
What can we do with such an incompetent govt. If our nation is not devoloped aand is such sorry state of ffairs, it is becaue of Congress!!! Their rule is worse than the rule of Brittish Empire or Mughal Rule. When will our Shiva / Krishna come and deliver us from this evil rulers
Even though the Directive Principles(Article 36-51) are positive obligations on the state, unfortunately they are non-justiciable. They were meant to be so because it was assumed that the state at any given point of time may not have the necessary resources to implement the same. Thus they are included as goals which the state should strive to achieve.
I think the very non-justiciable character of directive principles has become their undoing. But even though the courts cannot enforce the directive principles per se, in my opinion, they can assess whether or not the state has the “necessary means”. If it does, then the very ground for the non-justiciable character of the directive principles is void, which would then mean that directive principles can be enforced.
Clearly, minortyism and similar political considerations cannot be grounds for vacating the directive principles of state policy.
The President’s and the Governor’s powers of clemency may serve as a suitable analogy. While, these are discretionary in nature, yet the Supreme Court has held that these are not beyond judicial review and cannot be determined by political considerations. Similarly, implemetation of directive principles should not be beyond the scope of judicial review if it is demonstrated suitably well that the state has the necessary means but is letting political considerations dictate it.
I think the non-justiciable character, as enshrined in the constitution, would still be preserved because if the state does not have the necessary means then the courts cannot dictate a time limit to accomplish the same.
"I can't be bulldozed or railroaded into resigning."
N Srinivasan
Yogesh Kootharasan
February 19, 2013 at 11:21 pm
What can we do with such an incompetent govt. If our nation is not devoloped aand is such sorry state of ffairs, it is becaue of Congress!!! Their rule is worse than the rule of Brittish Empire or Mughal Rule. When will our Shiva / Krishna come and deliver us from this evil rulers
Karthik Bulusu
February 21, 2013 at 7:13 pm
This is not surprising. Wait till walmart shows up.
Brahma
February 23, 2013 at 1:41 am
Even though the Directive Principles(Article 36-51) are positive obligations on the state, unfortunately they are non-justiciable. They were meant to be so because it was assumed that the state at any given point of time may not have the necessary resources to implement the same. Thus they are included as goals which the state should strive to achieve.
I think the very non-justiciable character of directive principles has become their undoing. But even though the courts cannot enforce the directive principles per se, in my opinion, they can assess whether or not the state has the “necessary means”. If it does, then the very ground for the non-justiciable character of the directive principles is void, which would then mean that directive principles can be enforced.
Clearly, minortyism and similar political considerations cannot be grounds for vacating the directive principles of state policy.
The President’s and the Governor’s powers of clemency may serve as a suitable analogy. While, these are discretionary in nature, yet the Supreme Court has held that these are not beyond judicial review and cannot be determined by political considerations. Similarly, implemetation of directive principles should not be beyond the scope of judicial review if it is demonstrated suitably well that the state has the necessary means but is letting political considerations dictate it.
I think the non-justiciable character, as enshrined in the constitution, would still be preserved because if the state does not have the necessary means then the courts cannot dictate a time limit to accomplish the same.