Article 38 of Indian Constitution: Directive Principles for Social Justice

Article 38 of the Indian Constitution is a cornerstone of India’s moral vision, enshrined as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. It guides the nation’s legal and policy framework toward ensuring social, economic, and political justice. At its heart, Article 38 tasks both the Union and State governments with a proactive role in eradicating inequalities and fostering a society where justice isn’t merely aspirational but actionable. While not directly enforceable by courts, its spirit deeply influences jurisprudence, legislation, and policymaking in the world’s largest democracy.

Understanding Article 38: Text, Interpretation, and Intent

The Full Text and Legislative Context

Article 38, under Part IV of the Constitution, is succinct yet far-reaching. Originally, it read:

“The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.”

A crucial amendment in 1976 (the Forty-Fourth Amendment) expanded Article 38 by inserting a second clause, reinforcing the responsibility to minimize inequalities. The revised Article 38 states:

• (1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people…
• (2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income, and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities…

The rewording signaled India’s ongoing commitment to deeper, practical measures for equality.

Interpreting “Social Justice”

Social justice, in the Indian constitutional context, extends beyond traditional legal rights. It wraps in economic development, equal access to opportunities, and removing systemic barriers based on caste, gender, religion, or economic status. The concept is broad, intentionally so, allowing evolving interpretation as Indian society and its challenges change over time.

Article 38 in Practice: Policy, Programs, and Judicial Influence

Influence on Government Policy and Welfare Schemes

Article 38 acts as a north star for a spectrum of government interventions aimed at welfare and equality. Several landmark schemes and reforms trace their conceptual roots to its principles.

Key Examples:

• Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA): Designed to provide rural employment and reduce income disparity, directly echoing Article 38(2).
• National Social Assistance Program (NSAP): A safety net for the elderly, widows, and differently-abled—addressing social and economic vulnerabilities.
• Reservation Policies: Policies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes in education and public employment explicitly aim to reduce historical injustices and disparities as envisioned by Article 38.

The Judiciary and Article 38

Although not justiciable, Article 38 profoundly influences Supreme Court and High Court decisions, often as a guiding standard when interpreting fundamental rights.

“Article 38 has served as the ethical touchstone for the Indian judiciary when expanding the scope of rights and scrutinizing the fairness of government policies,” notes Professor Upendra Baxi, renowned constitutional scholar. “It is not prescriptive, but persuasive—nudging the legal system towards a more just and equitable order.”

Courts, by referencing Article 38, have extended social justice in cases involving education, healthcare, and affirmative action.

Directive Principles, Fundamental Rights, and Article 38’s Balancing Act

Complementary Frameworks

The Indian Constitution divides its moral and legal imperatives between Fundamental Rights (justiciable and enforceable) and the Directive Principles of State Policy (non-justiciable guidelines). Article 38 stands firmly in the latter camp, functioning as a lodestar for policy rather than a direct legal sword.

That said, Indian courts often read Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in harmony. For instance, the right to equality (Article 14) or constitutional remedies (Article 32) have been interpreted in ways that seek to fulfill the broader objectives stated in Article 38.

Challenges and Real-World Complexities

Implementing Article 38’s vision hasn’t been straightforward:

• Resource Constraints: With India’s vast population and limited government resources, scaling welfare is a logistical and fiscal challenge.
• Persistent Inequality: Despite steady progress, India continues to register significant disparities, particularly in education, healthcare, and access to justice, as evidenced by ongoing reports from organizations like NITI Aayog and World Bank.
• Evolving Social Contexts: The nature of “inequality” mutates with globalization, technological change, and urbanization, requiring continual re-interpretation and updated strategies.

Article 38 and Contemporary Social Justice Movements

Modern Campaigns Rooted in Directive Principles

Contemporary movements—for gender equity, digital inclusion, or rural development—draw moral force from Article 38’s language. For instance, national dialogues around:

• Universal Basic Income
• Expansion of health insurance (Ayushman Bharat)
• Free and compulsory education (Right to Education Act)

All reflect society’s ongoing debate over how to actualize social and economic justice as envisioned under Article 38.

Progressive Judicial Approaches

Recent Supreme Court rulings, such as those concerning transgender rights and privacy as a fundamental right, have referenced social justice philosophies akin to Article 38. Although not always cited explicitly, its essence shapes judicial attitudes.

“Indian constitutional vision is unique in recognizing not just liberty, but a positive obligation to redress systemic injustice,” observes Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, highlighting the enduring power of the Directive Principles.

Global Perspective: How Article 38 Stands Internationally

Social justice as a constitutional objective isn’t unique to India, but the explicitness and breadth of Article 38 set a distinct tone. Few constitutions weave social, economic, and political justice as comprehensively or demand proactive government intervention to minimize inequalities.

Inspired by global charters like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, India’s model is more directive, indicating not just ideals but actionable state priorities. This approach continues to influence public policy and constitutionalism in other developing nations.

Conclusion: The Enduring Relevance of Article 38

Article 38 remains a moral lodestar and practical reference for Indian democracy. Despite its non-justiciable nature, it fosters an environment where social, economic, and political justice become collective aims—not merely the subjects of court dispute, but of continuous public effort. Achieving its vision is an ongoing task, requiring adaptive policies, judicial creativity, and societal will.

The core promise of Article 38—a just and equitable social order—remains one of India’s most vital and enduring constitutional ambitions. Future progress will rely on translating its principles into audacious policies and ensuring that justice, in all its dimensions, becomes accessible to every citizen.

FAQs

What is the main purpose of Article 38 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 38 directs the State to secure a social order with justice in social, economic, and political spheres, aiming to minimize inequalities in income, status, and opportunity.

Is Article 38 enforceable by the courts?
No, Article 38 is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy and is not directly enforceable in courts. However, it guides legislative and policy development.

How does Article 38 influence government schemes?
Many welfare and affirmative action programs, such as MGNREGA and reservation policies, are inspired by Article 38’s objective to reduce disparities and promote social welfare.

What role does Article 38 play in judicial decisions?
While not justiciable, courts often refer to Article 38 to interpret the scope of fundamental rights and evaluate the fairness of government policies, ensuring legal arguments align with social justice goals.

How is Article 38 relevant to today’s social justice movements?
Contemporary campaigns for equality, inclusive education, and healthcare often draw on the spirit of Article 38, making it highly relevant in current policy and legal debates.

Was Article 38 amended since its introduction?
Yes, it was expanded in 1976 to explicitly require the State to minimize inequalities, adding greater emphasis and specificity to its original mandate.