This article has been written by Mr. Vedant Singh Pal, a student studying BBA LL.B.(Hons.) From ICFAI Law School, The ICFAI University, Dehradun. The author is a 2nd-year law student.

INTRODUCTION

Administrative discretion, to put it simply, is the ability to recognise what is just in the eyes of the law. In the context of particular events and happenings in the modern world, it aids in assessing whether or not an action is required. Officials have the power to take action, but they are also subject to rules and are held accountable.

A welfare state is a form of government in which the state actively safeguards and advances the economic and social well-being of its people. It is founded on the ideas of equal opportunity, equitable economic distribution, and public responsibility for those unable to access even the bare necessities for a decent life. Different types of economic and social organisations may fall within the broad definition.

The concept of a welfare state can be interpreted in one of two ways:

1. A system where the government is in charge of the well-being of its population. Theoretically, this duty should be all-encompassing because citizens are allotted the same “right” to receive all forms of support.
2. The term “welfare state” can also refer to the establishment of a “social safety net” with minimal requirements for various types of welfare.

A welfare state is, in the purest definition, a kind of government that totally caters to the welfare or well-being of its population. Such a government is deeply ingrained in the lives of its people. Instead of people meeting their own wants, it meets physical, material, and social requirements. The welfare state’s goal is to ensure that everyone has access to a fair level of living.

THEORY OF WELFARE STATE

The confluence of ideas—primarily conservatism, liberalism, and socialism—in the exceptional historical context of a qualitative shift from administrative to ameliorative legislation in Britain is where the welfare state concept originated and developed. Empiricism and ideology were interestingly applied to the issue of poverty during the concept’s formative years. Within a liberal framework, the welfare state involved a social consensus on a broad range of socioeconomic issues. The concept’s expansion was significantly influenced by two sociological factors: first, rising prosperity, which led to an upsurge in expectations; and second, the optimism and anxiety sparked by the recently gained manhood franchise. The pattern for increasing municipal action and the interest of the government in social reform was set by the faith in piecemeal social engineering, free of dogma. Indeed, this was a foreboding start.

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE OF STATE POLICY AND WELFARE STATE

When drafting laws and policies, the central and state governments of India should keep in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy. They are listed in Part IV of the Indian Constitution. I.e., guiding principles of government policy. They serve as the means through which the government of the nation is instructed. The directive principles specify specific economic and social policies that the various Indian governments must implement. They are categorised as social and economic charters, charters for social security, and charters for community welfare.

The principles outlined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution are not enforceable by any court, but they are seen as vital to the nation’s governance, therefore it is the State’s responsibility to use these principles when passing legislation to create a just society in the nation. The guiding principles, which relate to social fairness, economic well-being, foreign policy, legal and administrative issues, and Gandhi’s teachings, were inspired by the Directive Principles set down in the Irish Constitution.

The state must focus its policy in particular on ensuring that:

1. That all citizens, men and women, equally, have the right to a sufficient means of subsistence;

2. That the ownership and management of the community’s material resources are distributed in a way that serves the common good;

3. That the operation of the economic system does not lead to the concentration of wealth and production resources to the detriment of the general welfare.

4. That men and women receive equal compensation for equally hard work.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

Certain economic and social rights were classified as directive principles by the constituent assembly since it was difficult to include them on the list of fundamental rights. In this way, the rights listed below were included in the directive principles:

1. Article 39(a): “The right to an adequate means of subsistence”

2. Article 39(b), which prohibits economic exploitation;

3. Article 39 (d): The right of both sexes to equal compensation for equal effort;

4. The ability to work;

5. Article 43: “Right to leisure and relaxation”

6. Article 42 guarantees the right to public aid in cases of unemployment, old age, or illness;

7. Article 41: “The right to education”

8. Article 42: The right to just and humane working conditions;

9. Article 42’s right to maternity leave; and

10. Children have a right to free and compulsory education under Article 45.

THE MANEKA GANDHI CASE AND THEREAFTER

The judiciary simultaneously took it upon itself to infuse the spirit of social justice into the constitutional provisions. This was done in a number of cases, the most notable of which was Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. The government’s refusal to grant the petitioner a passport was at issue in the case, restricting her freedom to travel. The court then went on to describe the scope and content of the right to life and liberty in response to the query of whether this denial could be upheld without a predecisional hearing.

In contrast to the former perspective, the court held that the notion of substantive due process is an essential aspect of the chapter on basic rights and derives from a shared understanding of the framework supporting articles 14 (the right to equality), 19 (the freedoms), and 21. (the right to life). Thus, the court’s ability to invalidate laws was increased to include a critical assessment of the substantive due process provision in statutes.

There was no turning back after the court expanded its understanding of the breadth and meaning of the fundamental right to life and liberty. Numerous other incidental and integral rights, many of which are ESC rights, were interpreted to be covered by Article 21.

In Francis Coralie Mullin the court declared:

“The right to life includes the freedom to move around, interact freely with other people, and live with human dignity and all that entails, including the basic necessities of life like adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter as well as the ability to read, write, and express oneself in a variety of ways. This right must, in any view of the matter, include the bare necessities of life as well as the right to engage in those functions and activities that serve as the bare minimum expression of the human self. The scope and components of this right will depend on the degree of economic development of the nation.

CONCLUSION

The phrase “welfare state” is so useful and adaptable that it can be adjusted to match different social and economic trends. Some believe that a welfare state is implied by the definition of the state. Political parties and organisations that support public changes are encouraged to promote their preferred plans and ideas while criticising those put forth by opponents. It serves as a cover for strategy and tactics used by political parties and organisations that promote public opinion to carry out various operations in an effort to appeal to the greatest segments of voters.

The kind of social changes that the term “welfare” envisions are imprecise because it eluded accurate description; its connotation is open to diverse interpretations. Any government can claim to reflect what Rousseau referred to as “the general will” and any state can be said to as a welfare state. A suitable criterion or set of criteria for the welfare state concept is difficult to establish. It has a complicated and shaky relationship with the ideas of “social justice” and “egalitarianism.” The welfare state has become everyone’s cup because of the flimsy and ambiguous character of the idea. Each side comes up with arguments to support the welfare state.

The core idea of the Indian welfare state is precisely its blend of individualistic ethics, welfare functionalism, and a free market economy. The operations of the Indian state attempt to balance the shifting demands of society. In this respect, India’s contemporary social history and political thought have focused primarily on the welfare state paradigm.

Reference:

1. Malhotra Kumar Vinay. Welfare State and Supreme Court in India. (Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications).
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
5. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan002355.pdf

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening