GK Question- 70

The Directive Principles of State policy, though attractive, are not enforceable by law. But there is one among the given options, which has been so far made enforceable by a Supreme Court fiat. Identify that DPSP from the given options:
[A]Uniform Civil Code
[B]Free Education till the children complete age of 6 years (provision after 86th amendment act)
[C]Equal pay for equal work
[D]Prohibition of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health

Explanation: It is true that the DPSP are not enforceable by law, yet the Supreme Court has constantly en
Consider the following leaders:
1. Jawahar Lal Nehru
2. Sardar Patel
3. Dr. Rajendra Prasad
4. Abul Kalam Azad
Who among the above leaders represented Indian National Congress in the Partition Council?
[A]1 & 2
[B]2 & 3
[C]3 & 4
[D]1 & 4

Explanation: Before the Partition Council, a Partition Committee was formed which was chaired by Lord Mountbatten and its members were Vallabh Bhai Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Liaqat Ali Khan and Abdur Rab Nishtar. Later this committee was replaced by a Partition Council. In this council, Congress was represented by Sardar Patel and Dr. Rajendra Prasad, with C. Rajgopalachari as alternate member. Muslim league was represented by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan and Abdur Rab Nishtar as alternate member. Please note that even after 15 August 1947, this partition council was in existence, but the composition was changed as 2 members from each dominion. Patel and Dr. Prasad kept representing Indian Domain even at that time. deavored to make the executive at least make some laws in that regard. The first option is incorrect, most of us can figure it out. The second stands provisional as the original constitution had 14 years of age, out of which 6-14 years has now become and RTE and 0-6 years is the DPSP. There is no law in India which follows option D. The only DPSP which has been enforced by a law is “Equal pay for equal work”.
The principle of equal pay for equal work for men and women embodied in Article 39(d) of the Constitution was first considered in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs Union of India in 1962. The Supreme Court then said that it was not capable of being enforced In a court of law. However, the situation changed in 1982, when in Randhir Singh vs Union of India it was unequivocally ruled that the principle was not an abstract doctrine and could be enforced by reading into it the equality precepts enshrined in Articles 14 and 16. The court went so far as to say that even a daily wage employee who is performing duties similar to regular employees is entitled to the same pay. However, the Supreme Court took another turn by 1988 and veered round to the view that the principle cannot be enforced and it should remain only as a guiding star for the law makers and judiciary. For the same purpose there is an act “Equal Remuneration Act of 1976”, but the act has been proved toothless so far.