BPSC Exam Prep

Objectives of the Constitution

In the Preamble, the Constitution of India seeks to secure four objectives Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity so as to assure the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.

Justice:

According to Aristotle, justice consists in what is lawful and fair, with fairness involving equitable distributions and the correction of what is inequitable. 

The Preamble to the Constitution of India promises justice to all citizens. It applies the Justice in terms of,

• Social Justice
• Economic Justice
• Political Justice

These are secured through the various provisions of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

The Articles 38, 39 (a-f), 39A chiefly speaks the language of justice in the Indian Constitution. In fact, various other articles in Part IV (Articles 36 to 51) are also directed towards securing a new social and economic order imbued with justice. Moreover, Articles 16, 17, 18, 325,326 strengthens the political justice in the Indian Democracy.

In Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union, 1996; the Supreme Court said, justice is an attribute of human conduct and rule of law is indispensable foundation to establish socio-economic justice. 

In National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India, 2014; the Supreme Court declared transgender people the ‘third gender’, upholding the rule of law and ensuring access to justice to the marginalized section of the society.

The concept of justice, viz. social, economic and political has been taken from the Russian Revolution. The Preamble gives the precedence to Social Justice over Economic and Political justice. Most significantly, the Preamble places Justice higher than the other objectives – Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

Social Justice:

Social Justice is that all citizens are treated equal irrespective of their social distinction based on race, religion, caste, colour, sex, place of birth, etc.

In Ashok Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P., 1997; three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that Social Justice is a Fundamental Right.

Economic Justice:

Economic Justice is the non-discrimination between people on the basis of economic factors.

This involves removal of poverty, not by expropriation from those who have, but by the multiplication of the national wealth and resources and an equitable distribution thereof amongst all who contribute towards its production. This is the aim of the State envisaged by the Directive Principles.

Economic justice aims at establishing economic democracy and a ‘Welfare State’.

In G.B. Pant University vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000; the Supreme Court said, economic justice is not a mere legal jargon but in the new millennium, it is the obligation for all to confer this economic justice to a seeker.

Economic Justice has also got strengthened by the 103 Constitutional Amendment Act which speaks of the economic weaker sections of citizens, by inserting two sub clauses Articles 15 (6) and 16 (6) in the Indian Constitution.

Political Justice:

Political Justice is every citizen has the right to participate in political process irrespective of race, religion, caste, colour, sex, etc.

In Raghunathrao Ganpatrao Etc. vs Union of India, 1993; the Supreme Court said that the Political justice relates to the  principle  of rights of  the people, i.e., right to universal  suffrage, right  to  democratic  form  of Government  and  right to participation  in  political affairs.

Therefore, Political Justice is mandatory for the representative and participatory democracy in India.

The promise for Social, Economic and Political justice to citizens made by Constitution of India cannot condone policies that turn blind eye to deliberate infliction of misery on large segments of our population.

Liberty:

The term liberty is derived from Latin word ‘liber’ meaning free. Liberty in general means freedom from captivity, imprisonment, slavery, serfdom or despotism.

Historically speaking, the term liberty was initially defined as absence of all restraints on an individual. This is known as the negative concept of liberty. However, since individuals live together in a society, complete absence of restraints would be neither possible nor desirable. Further, differentiating between the self-regarding and other-regarding action is not always possible. Therefore, for liberty to be enjoyed by everyone, it should have reasonable restraints. This is the concept of positive liberty.

The ideological concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity in our Preamble have been taken from the French Revolution.

‘Liberty’ in the Preamble to our Constitution does not mean mere absence of restraint or domination. It is a positive concept of the right to “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship”, which is secured to all citizens. These are the only liberty which finds a place in the Preamble while the other liberties are not mentioned. The intention of the Constitution-makers was to regard justice combining these liberties and equality as the keystone of the Constitution. The Constitution recognizes this, and secures these rights through its various provisions particularly through the Fundamental Rights.

Article 19 guarantees protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. while Articles 25-28 embody rights to freedom of religion including that of belief, faith, and worship.

Article 21 also speaks about protection of life and personal liberty. Justice Chandrachud in the Navtej Singh Johar case while approvingly to the NALSA judgement said that privacy is intrinsic to freedom and liberty.

But these rights are not absolute they are based on certain reasonable restrictions; whereas, the preambular objective of liberty is absolute.

Liberty should be coupled with social restraint and subordinated to the liberty of the greatest number for common happiness.

In Re: The Kerala Education Bill,1957; the Supreme Court through justice Das observed that one of the most cherished objects of our Constitution is, thus, to secure to all its citizens the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.

In Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab, 1994; the Supreme Court held that liberty is the essential concomitant for other rights without which a man cannot be at his best.

In Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, 2018; the Supreme Court said the concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and the values it stands for. It is the obligation of the Constitutional Courts as the sentinel on qui vive to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual as the dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty. Without sustenance of liberty, subject to constitutionally valid provisions of law, the life of a person is comparable to the living dead having to endure cruelty and torture without protest and tolerate imposition of thoughts and ideas without a voice to dissent or record a disagreement.

Equality:

Equality is considered to be the essence of modern democratic ideology. The term ‘equality’ means the absence of special privileges to any section of the society, and the provision of adequate opportunities for all individuals without any discrimination.

The term ‘Equality’ in political science does not mean that all men (and women) are equal in all circumstances. There are bound to be physical, mental and economic differences.

The Constitution makers placed the ideals of equality in a place of pride in the Preamble. All kinds of inequality based on the concept of rulers and the ruled or on the basis of caste and gender, were to be eliminated. The concept embodied in our Preamble is only that of equality of status and opportunity. This has legal, social, political and economic aspects.

The Constitution recognizes this, and secures by guaranteeing equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, as justiciable rights under Article 14; by making illegal all discriminations by the State between citizen and citizen, only on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth U/A 15; by throwing open ‘public places’ to all citizens U/A 15(2); by offering equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment under the State U/A 16; by abolishing untouchability U/A 17 and by abolishing titles of honour U/A 18.

The Constitution seeks to achieve political equality by providing for universal adult franchise U/A 326 and by reiterating that no person shall be either excluded from the general electoral roll or allowed to be included in any general or special electoral roll, only on the ground of his religion, race, caste or sex U/A 325.

In the economic sphere there are special provisions in the Directive Principles under Part IV which enjoin the State to place the two sexes on an equal footing, by securing to men and women equal right to work and equal pay for equal work U/A 39, Cls. (a), (d).

In Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India, 1994; the Supreme Court observed concept of secularism is one facet of the right to equality.

In Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain case, Justice Chandrachud observed that equality is the faith and creed of our democratic republic.

Fraternity:

The term ‘fraternity’ means developing the feeling of brotherhood. Fraternity is indicative of a common bond or a feeling of unity between people or communities acting either within the private or public sphere. A fraternal bond is one that does not relate to the shared use of goods but rather a shared feeling that is intrinsic to the existence and functioning of the agents themselves.

In the background of India’s multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious society and keeping in view the partition of the country, the framers of the Constitution were very much concerned about the unity and integrity of our newly independent country. There was a need for harmonious co-existence among various religions, linguistic, cultural and economic groups. To promote this the spirit of brotherhood was absolutely essential in the country. Hence, the culture of fraternity aid in establishment and sustenance of an egalitarian order which was the ultimate goal of the framers.

The fraternity did not appear in the Objective Resolution but was later incorporated by the Drafting Committee under the chairmanship of Dr Ambedkar, as a means to promote ‘fraternal concord and goodwill’ in the nation. The idea of fraternity finds mention in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution, where “… fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation” is declared to be a constitutional goal. The word ‘integrity’ was added to the Preamble by the Constitution (42^nd Amendment) Act, 1976.

But H.M. Seervai has argued that a fair and just executive can promote the idea of fraternity far better, than a constitutional mandate. Seervai also argued that the concept of fraternity is a moral and political ideal that has no relevance in understanding and interpreting the Constitution. Additionally, he posits that the ideals of the Preamble themselves are ambiguous and without a proper understanding these ideals prove useless in the constitutional scheme.

 ©bpscexamprep.com

The first and most extensive discussion on fraternity took place in Indira Sawhney vs Union of India, 1992. In this, fraternity was used by the Court in two distinct, yet related fashions: to defend the practice of reservations under the Constitution based on fraternity and also to warn of its effects on fraternal relations when undertaken in an unguided manner.

In Raghunathrao Ganpatrao vs Union of India, 1993; the Court used the principle of fraternity to reject an argument that the erstwhile princes formed a separate class under the Constitution and were therefore entitled to special privileges, by supporting the abolition of privy purses.

In AIIMS Students’ Union vs AIIMS, 2001; the Supreme Court held that reservation for post-graduate students in AIIMS was not supported by the Constitution and was accordingly obnoxious. The Court stated that the Preamble assured to every citizen the idea of fraternity as a means to achieve national unity and dignity. This assurance of fraternity would, however, be substantially undermined by reservation which is incompatible with the Constitution or any of its values.

In Indian Medical Association vs Union of India, 2011; petitioners’ challenged Article 15(5) to the extent that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution by interfering with private unaided educational institutions. In this regard, the Court emphasized the need for providing widespread access to education as greater access to education would promote the ideal of fraternity. A connection was also drawn between equality and fraternity in the given manner: in the absence of substantive equality or equality of means to access resources, various social groups could never achieve the requisite dignity necessary for the promotion of fraternity. The Court held Clause (5) of Article 15 does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, but in fact strengthen the basic structure of our constitution.

In Nandini Sundar vs State Of Chhattisgarh, 2011; the practice of appointing Special Police Officers (‘SPOs’) to constitute a private militia (Salwa Judum), the purpose of which was to control Maoist activities in Chhattisgarh was challenged based on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court held the appointment of SPOs as violative of Arts. 14 & 21 and at the same time the Court employed the idea of fraternity in three distinct fashions: as a buffer to unchecked state power; as a mechanism to promote more inclusive economic policy in consonance with directive principles of state policy and finally to reinforce the Centre’s responsibility of upholding human rights in a federal structure.

A fraternity cannot, however, be installed unless the dignity of each of its members is maintained. The Preamble, therefore, says that the State, in India, will assure the dignity of the Individual. The phrase ‘dignity of the individual’ signifies that the Constitution not only ensures material betterment and maintains a democratic set-up, but it also recognizes that the personality of every individual is sacred.

In L.I.C. of India vs Consumer Education & Research Centre, 1995; the Supreme Court held that the right to dignity is a fundamental right.

In order to safeguard the dignity of the individual, we need to build the nation and protect its unity and integrity. The phrase ‘unity and integrity of the nation’ embraces both the psychological and territorial dimensions of national integration.

The Constitution seeks to achieve this object by, having common citizenship, guaranteeing equal fundamental rights, issuing guidelines to the State in the form of Directive Principles, laying down the Fundamental duties of every citizen, and also by promoting trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory of India.

There is also an international aspect of fraternity which takes us to the concept of universal brotherhood, the ancient Indian ideal of ‘Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam’ i.e. entire world being a family.

In the Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State of Kerala also known as the Sabrimala case; the Supreme Court while discussing the object of the Indian Constitution observed that the Preamble aims at not only transforming political power from the colonial regime but also transformation in the structure of governance. Above all the Constitution envisages a transformation in the position of the individual, as a focal point of a just society. The Court held that the principles of Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity are not disjunctive. Together, the values which they incorporate within each principle coalesce in achieving the fulfillment of human happiness.