Home »
Constitution Design »
Questions for constitution makers in Nepal »
Human Rights
Directive Principles
A number of constitutions contain chapters called something like "Directive Principles of State Policy". This seems to have originated with the Constitution of the Irish Republic in 1937 and was picked up by the Constitution of India 1950. Similar provisions appear in the constitutions of Papua New Guinea, Ghana, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Nepal, among others. What distinguishes such a principle from a right is that it is specifically said not to form the basis of any claim in court. It is supposed to guide government but they cannot be held legally liable for failure to comply with the principles.
In the Interim Constitution of Nepal there are many such principles in chapter 4. This says: "No question shall be raised in any court as to whether provisions contained in this Part are implemented or not" (Article 36). But in the Interim Constitution some provisions have been moved to the Human Rights chapter that were formerly (in the 1990 Constitution) in the Directive Principles.
The Indian courts have been able to make some creative use of these principles, and use them to expand the human rights. A striking example is the case on the right to education. This is a Directive Principle, but in a case the Supreme Court said that after over 40 years it was really time the courts made this an enforceable right at least to some extent. The case is Unnikrishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh. After this case the Constitution was amended to introduce a Right to Education.
In South Africa it was decided not to have such unenforceable principles but to have actual rights to education, access to housing, health etc in the Constitution.
|
