Inclusive Growth and the Role of Constitution of India in Eradicating Unemployment

INTRODUCTION
 “Life, means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed.” Unemployment is not a recent phenomenon in India, it has existed since the pre-independent era. Unemployment hampers development of the nation on all fronts, as the nation has to divert its resources to take care of the economically downtrodden. Hence, achievement of socio-economic justice was made one of the constitutional goals. The Constitution of India deals with various provisions through which employment may be secured. This paper makes an attempt to analyse the nature of these provisions and the concept of inclusive growth. It also highlights that, since these provisions are in the nature of directives the menace of unemployment cannot be addressed in its truest sense by the judiciary. The Constitution of India aims at promoting welfare of the citizens, one of the hindrances in achieving inclusive growth is unemployment of the masses of India. The status of the Articles directing the government to make provisions for securing employment is that, they are unenforceable in the courts of law and granting employment is made dependant on the economic capacity of the State. The paper attempts to highlight the problem that this set-up makes eradication of unemployment a distant dream. The Constitution of India provides for ample measures to eradicate unemployment, however, as long as they are in the nature of directives, their effect cannot be achieved. The sound economy of a country has become one of the crucial indicators projecting its strength. Many social and economic factors contribute to the development of a nation. A welfare state addresses the problems in all these socio-economic factors with equal importance. The problem of unemployment has not received the necessary aid neither by the government nor by the judiciary. This research is done with an object to analyse the role of constitution in eradication of unemployment in an inclusive democracy. POLITICAL DEMOCRACY, ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY AND INCLUSIVE GROWTH. Inclusive growth as a philosophy, aims at advancing equitable opportunities for economic participants during economic growth with benefits incurred in every section of the society. Inclusive growth refers to pro-poor growth with simultaneous reduction in poverty and inequality. The major difference between a pro-poor growth and inclusive growth is that, pro-poor growth refers to a growth wherein certain class is deprived of the benefit so that it can be availed by the more deprived. By contrast, inclusive growth refers to a pattern of growth wherein all the strata of society are equally benefitted and even equally and actively participate in the growth. It involves an idea of expansive reach of participation opportunities. By participation it means productive economic activities and having a say on the orientation of the growth process. The participation in productive economic activities has been linked to the concept of productive employment . The Constitution of India labels India as a democracy in its Preamble. In India, democracy takes shapes in three forms. Namely, parliamentary democracy, political democracy and economic democracy. These concepts lay down the framework of Indian polity. Parliamentary democracy hinges on the concept of ‘one person one vote’ laid down by Dr. Ambedkar. Political democracy means that, the government in power enjoying majority support should not turn out to be a despot and autocrat. Economic democracy focuses on the path which a government in power should travel at. The draftspersons of the constitution did not wish to merely lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be framing the government. That idea is economic democracy.”  The idea of economic democracy was put forth by Dr, Ambedkar when the Assembly was moved with a question with respect to the status of Directive Principles of State Policy in a Parliamentary democracy. While replying to Mahbood AK Baig Sahib Bahadur’s contention that the Directive Principles of State Policy as envisaged under the Constitution are out of place and are contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy. Dr. Ambedkar, at that point clarified that Directive Principles of State Policy have great value, for they lay down the constitutional ideologies of economic democracy and added, that the provisions of Part IV are not rigid as Article 37 regards them as unenforceable. The reason behind such a move was that the Draft Committee did not consider it useful to give a fixed, rigid form to something which is not rigid, which is fundamentally changing and must, having regard to the circumstances and the times, keep on changing. While answering to this query, he conveyed the object behind framing the Constitution as twofold, to establish a political and economic democracy and also to prescribe that every government shall strive to bring about economic democracy. When the idea of economic democracy is viewed from the prism of the theory of inclusive growth one ought to find strength in the language of the provisions of the constitution which aim at eradicating poverty.  THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
 The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 introduced the term ‘socialism’ in the Preamble, through which the constitution was adopted. Indian democracy is governed by the philosophy of ‘socialism’. The statement of objective of amendment conveys that, socialism aims to end poverty, ignorance, disease and inequality of opportunity. Indian socialism is a blend of Marxism and Gandhism, leaning heavily towards Gandhian socialism. Thus, gandhian socialism roots for economic justice by promoting equality for all. The economic components of Gandhian socialism are centered on Swaraj, resulting in complete economic freedom. This is achieved through self-sufficiency and self-reliance, where, everyone gets a due share of his/her labour. In its raw form, the draft of Indian Constitution was so designed that Part III contained the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Rights, both. Article 11 to 30 formed part of Chapter 2 titled as Fundamental Rights and through these Articles basic rights were granted to the people. This was followed by Chapter 3 containing the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 31 to 41 which were meant to guide the state in policy making. Since the idea of incorporating the Directive Principles of State Policy into the constitution was borrowed from the Irish Constitution, Shri B.N Rau, the Constitutional Advisor, considered it apt to discuss the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights with the President of Ireland. However the current status of Directive Principles of State Policy do not correspond to what was incorporated by Ireland, as it gives primacy to Directive Principles of State Policy over Fundamental Rights To demarcate the separation in the nature and effect of the two, the Drafting Committee retained only the Fundamental Rights under Part III and dedicated Part IV for the Directive Principles of State Policy. At this stage, the intention of the Drafting Committee was conveyed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, as, “If it is said that the Directive Principles of State Policy have no legal force I am prepared to admit that they have no sought of binding force at all. Nor I am prepared to concede that they are useless because they have no binding force in law… who should be in power is left to be determined by the people. But whoever captures power will not be free to do what he likes with it. In the exercise of it, he will have to respect these instruments called Directive Principles. He may not have to answer for their breach in a court of law. But he will certainly have to answer for them before the electorate at election time.” Article 37 of the Constitution Of India, 1950 states that, “The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.” To prove the hypothesis, this paper argues that, although the directives are stated to be the foundational pillars in the governance of the nation their inherent non- justiciability takes away the effect of the mandate that they are meant to create. Therefore, the second part of Article 37 wherein it imposes a duty on the State to apply the ‘principles’ while enacting laws becomes a mere guidance. A perusal of Part IV shows that they focus on attaining social and economic justice, the goal enshrined in the Preamble. Economic justice aims at achieving equality by reducing the economic divide and equitable distribution and attaining equality in status and removing inequality of opportunity . The menace of unemployment in India is one of the greatest impediments in attainment of economic justice which is one of the major building blocks of a welfare state. The theory of economic justice stems from the theory of justice propounded by the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Aristotle divides justice into distributive, corrective or remedial justice. “The expression social and economic justice involves the concept of ‘distributive justice’ which connotes the removal of economic inequalities and rectifying the injustice resulting from dealing or transaction between unequal in society. It comprehends more than lessening of inequalities by different taxation, giving debt relief or regulation of contractual relation it also means the restoration of properties to those who have been deprived of them by unconscionable bargains; it may also take the form of forced redistribution of wealth as a means of achieving a fair division of material resourced among the members of society.” Thus, Economic justice is a facet of liberty without which equality of status and dignity of person is a teasing illusions.Â
 UNEMPLOYMENT IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
 In International Labour Organisation’s Glossary of Terms, ‘unemployment’ is defined as, “Persons in unemployment are defined as all those of working age who were not in employment, carried out activities to seek employment during a specified recent period and were currently available to take up employment given a job opportunity”.  Under the Constitution of India, the provisions with respect to securing eradication of unemployment are Articles 16, 19(1)(g), 39, 41, 42, 43, 43A, 48 and 320 in the nature of freedom to work and the directive to the state to enact laws towards eradicating unemployment. It is pertinent to note that none guarantee an enforceable right to seek employment against the State, much less a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Ironically, the Nehru Report, 1928 which was a memorandum to appeal for a new dominion status and a federal set-up of government for the Constitution of India, construed right to seek employment as an enforceable right. Thereafter, the Karachi resolution of 1931, which restated the vision of Purna Swaraj – complete independence laid down certain socio economic rights as fundamental rights. Only three of such rights formed part of the current Directive Principles of State Policy one of which is right to seek employment, the rest formed part of enforceable rights under Part III of Constitution of India. In State of Maharashtra v. Shobha Vitthal Kolte, the Bombay High Court after perusal of Articles 21 and 41 regarded work as the sole source of income and held, “Right to work becomes as much fundamental as right to life. Law as a social machinery requires to remove the existing imbalances and to further the progress serving the needs of the socialistic democratic republic under the rule of law. Prevailing social conditions and actualities of life are to be taken into account to adjudge the dispute and to see whether the interpretation would sub serve the purpose of the society.” However, the Court stated in clear terms that seeking enforcement of right to work under Article 21 is conditional on the ground that the person aggrieved should be in the employment, its enforcement cannot be sought by the unemployed. To quote the Supreme Court, “Right to work as a fundamental right can only be considered as a fundamental right in those cases where there is a legislative guarantee in the form of a legislation. In the absence of right to work being fundamental right, it would not fall within the expression life under Article 21.” It is a settled principle in law that Directives Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights are two wheels of the chariot in establishing the egalitarian social order. Right to life enshrined in Article 21 means something more than mere animal existence. It would include right to live with human dignity. And in the Olga Tellis case , it included within its sweep right to means of livelihood and right to health. In the light of these precedents, the journey of right to work as a basic human right has been such that, initially it was read as a part of right to life, by the end of 20th century the Supreme took a bold initiative to give it a flavour of enforceability but by the advent of 21st century, the Supreme Court due to certain impediments in the constitutional set up couldn’t allow itself to make it absolutely enforceable, without qualifications, although it was read into Article 21 which itself is a perennial right as it cannot be suspended even during emergency. Article 50 of the Constitution of India incorporates the doctrine of separation of powers. Due to prevalence of this principle the Courts have to honour the rider of within the economic capacities of the State explicitly stated under Article 41. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, was a breakthrough in the arena of economic justice. It recognised a fundamental right to livelihood by placing it under the aegis of Article 21, which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The five judge-bench made the following observation, “An equally important facet of Article 21 is the right to livelihood because no person can live life without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood id not treated as a part of constitutional right to live, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the law, if the right to livelihood will not be regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be regarded as an integral component of the right to life. The principles contained in Articles 39 (a) and 41 must be regarded as equally fundamental in the understanding on and interpretation of the meaning and the context of fundamental rights. If there is an obligation upon the State to secure to the citizens an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from the context of the right. The state may not, by affirmative action, be compellable to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred by Article 21.” The Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis, implicitly adopted and gave meaning to the theory of distributive justice propounded by Aristotle. By giving an expansive meaning to right to life by accommodating within its dimensions, a right to earn a living. The Court read Article 41 into Article 21 and laid down the foundational stone of right to work. However, the Court did point out the drawback that although right to livelihood is to be treated as a fundamental right, an affirmative action against the state with respect to its enforcement shall not be maintainable. That is to say, unless there is a violation of any legal provision which guarantees or deals with livelihood, State cannot be compelled to provide livelihood, as per the mandate of the Constitution and the reading of the Supreme Court. A question which lingers, as a corollary, is that, can a State be compelled to recognise the right to work? The answer to which is in negative. Reason being, under the present constitutional setup, a person cannot assert his, her or their right to seek employment and is only upon the mercy of the policies drafted by the State and the expansive interpretation of ‘Right to Life’ undertaken by the judiciary. Hence the attainment of right to livelihood of the unemployed is again at the mercy of the State, who can either choose to provide or refrain it. In Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Ors., The Apex Court made crucial observation with respect to right to livelihood and this case gave another dimension to the meaning of right to work. The case pertains to the abolition and absorption of contract labour under Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Neither the contractor nor the principle employer could be obligated to engage or employ the contract labour upon the abolition of contract labour. The Court held that, Article 226 gave powers to the High Court to direct the labors to be absorbed again in the establishment position. Reference under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of dispute for absorption on abolition of contract labour in the industry was held to be needless But, in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v National Union Waterfront Workers and Others it was held that the court erred in its decision in the Air India Statutory Corporation case and there is no right or entitlement of ‘absorption’ granted under any provision of the Act of 1970. However, what remains remarkable in the Air India judgement is the observation of the Supreme Court with respect to right to work. Upon the perusal of Article 41, employment can mean to have two aspects. One, securing the employment of the already employed and to enable them to not become unemployed and two, to guarantee, to actually provide employment to the unemployed. The first aspect has been discussed earlier, whereby the Courts have recognised and enforced the right to work of those who are under some sort of employment and have been removed illegally. In this case the presence of legislation is quintessential. The labour and employment laws are also passed to uphold the same. This paper focuses on the second aspect, that is, right to employment opportunities, popularly known as right to seek work. An enforceable guarantee to provide employment is a sine qua non, to ensure that when such guarantee is not fulfilled, the judiciary should not convey its helplessness in enforcing it. With this in view, the Parliament of India enacted the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 however this Act does not recognize the concept of ‘right to work’ and the aggrieved petitioners could not be regularised under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. This was explicitly stated by the Supreme Court in, Delhi Development Horticulture v Delhi Administration, Delhi . In the said decision, the Supreme Court observed that, “the object of the scheme was not to provide the right to work as such even to the rural poor-much less to the unemployed in general. No fault can be found with the limited object of the scheme given the limited resources at the disposal of the State. Those employed under the scheme, therefore, could not ask for more than what the scheme intended to give them. To get an employment under such scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment, a right to regularisation, is to frustrate the very scheme itself. No court can be a party to such exercise. It is wrong to approach the problems of those employed under such schemes with a view to providing them with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. These concepts in the context of such schemes are both unwarranted and misplaced.”  THE LEGISLATIONS ENACTED IN VIEW OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY  While it would be completely misleading to assert that due to their inherent non-enforceability the Directive Principles of State Policy have not been helpful and effective in achieving the constitutional goals. The ideals of education , pay parity , free and competent legal aid , self-regulation of Panchayats have had been the very objectives of legislations. Conversely, with the motive of eradicating unemployment and provide public assistance to the unemployed as envisaged by Article 41, the government has designed schemes like, Start-Up India Scheme , Integrated Rural development Programme , TRYSEM , Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY), launched in 2015 has an objective of enabling a large number of Indian youth to take up industry-relevant skill training that will help them in securing a better livelihood and a legislation named, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 The gross difference and implications of an Act of Parliament and a Scheme is evident. The Articles backing these legislations were also read into Article 21 by the Supreme Court, however, without any riders of economic capacity of the government. The provisions of Article 39A providing for access to free legal aid, to free legal service to a person accused of an offence is considered to be one of the limbs of ‘reasonable, fair and just procedure’ and implicit with the meaning of the terms ‘right to life and liberty.’ Pertinently, every accused who is unable to engage a lawyer or access legal services by reasons of poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation shall be provided by a lawyer. Notably, the government has been placed under an obligation to make provisions for free legal aid, although Article 39A is a directive, provided that, the accused person does not object to the provision of such lawyer. This squarely implies that an accused person has been given a constitutionally guaranteed right to access free legal aid and as a corollary, by way of judicial interpretation, the State has been placed under an constitutional obligation to efficaciously provide for the same. The judiciary diluted the barrier of unenforceability of the provisions of Article 39A by considering them as within the periphery of Article 21. Most importantly, the right to free legal aid was given and guaranteed without any prerequisite qualifications or conditions unlike which has been done in case of interpretation of Article 41 while reading it into Article 21. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 was passed with an objective to provide for the payment of equal remuneration to men and women workers and for the prevention of discrimination, on the ground of sex, against women in the matters of employment. In 1982, it was observed by the Supreme Court that, Article 39A of the Constitution when read with the term ‘socialist’ appearing in the text of the Preamble along with Articles 14 and 16, clearly, the principle of equal pay for equal work can be deduced and is applicable to the cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification of unequal classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. Article 40 directs that, the government shall facilitate smooth functioning of gram panchayats. In 1992, this directive was transformed into an enforceable constitutional provision when the Panchayats were given a constitutional status by way of 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992. This amendment added Chapter IX to the Constitution titled as ‘Panchayats’. Another significant step with respect to legislating in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy is environmental laws. Various enviro-centric laws were implemented to give effect to the directive enshrined under Article 48A.  Hence, it can be inferred that the trend has been to legislate strong, enduring status or to effectively read the provisions of Directive Principles of State Policy with the Fundamental Rights to realise the constitutional ideal of socio-economic democracy in its truest spirit.   CONCLUSION
 The opportunity to seek employment is a very dear right under a democracy which practices socio-economic justice. With this in view, in 2007, Shri Mohan Singh moved a Private Members Bill in Lok Sabha seeking an amendment to Article 16 to make employment a fundamental right. The legislators sought to make a law wherein right to employment opportunities, self-employment, vocational training programmes, food for work programmes, self-help programmes could be created and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 was sought to be extended at every district of the nation. This Bill aimed to give meaning to the term social-security, but unfortunately could see the light of the day as it stood withdrawn. Very recently, the government has proposed National Employment Policy, 2020 which aims at formalisation of the country’s 500 million workforce including migrants to ensure job and social security. The policy will lay out a sectoral roadmap with incentives for employment generation, based on the recommendations of the Thawar Chand Gehlot-led group of ministers in the wake of the Covid-19-induced economic crisis.  The notion of employer of last resort has garnered popularity at an international platform. As an economic policy, the government of a welfare state is expected to cater to the employment need of the masses of the nation by providing full employment and price stability by hiring unemployed workers under job guarantee schemes. Job Guarantee draws from a social justice tradition of right to work, such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the US Employment Act of 1946. India has been tacking socio-economic crisis with zeal. The fact that, the mid-day meal scheme, an initiative of the Government of India has so far been the largest ever amongst its counterparts is quite a motivation for aiming that the menace of unemployment can also be eradicated within the nation’s economic capacity.  ______________________________________________

1. Â Field, J. in Munn v Illinois, (1877) 94 U.S. 113. This observation was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court of India in Kharak Singh v The State of U.P., [1964] 1 S.C.R. 332.
2.  Anand, Rahul, Inclusive Growth Revisited: Measurement and Evolution, CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH, (December 31, 2020 3.08 PM) https://voxeu.org/article/inclusive-growth-revisited-measurement-and-evolution. Â
3. Â Rafael Raneiri & Raquel Almeida Ramos, After All, What is Inclusive Growth?, INTERNATIONAL POLICY CENTRE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH, 188 (2013).Â
4. Â CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, November 19, 1948 speech by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, available at http://loksabhaph.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C19111948.html (Last visited on December 31, 2020).
5. Â D.S. Nakara & Others v Union of India, 1983 AIR 130, 1983 SCR (2) 165.
6. Â Rao, V.K.R.K.V, The Gandhian Alternative to Western Socialism, JSTOR, 331-332 (1970) doi:10.1177/097492847002600401.Â
7. Â Supra note 4.
8. Â Dalmia Cement v Union of India, Writ Petition No. 4881 of 1989.
9. Â Papaiah v State of Karnataka, Civil Appeal No. 11933 of 11933 of 1996.
10. Â https://www.ilo.org/ilostat-files/Documents/Statistical%20Glossary.pdf (Last visited on January 4, 2021).
11.  The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.—
12. (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.Â
13. Â The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.19(1)(g) Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.- (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
14.  The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.39 Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.—The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing—
15. (a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;Â
16. (b)that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;Â
17. (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;
18. (d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;Â
19. (e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength; 3 (f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
20.  The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.41 Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.—The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.
21.  The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.42 Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.—The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.
22.  The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.43 Living wage, etc., for workers.—The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.
23.  The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.43A 43A. Participation of workers in management of industries.—The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way, to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry.
24.  The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.48 48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.—The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
25.  The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.320 Functions of Public Service Commissions.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Union and the State Public Service Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the State respectively.
26. Â https://www.constitutionofindia.net/historical_constitutions/nehru_report__motilal_nehru_1928__1st%20January%201928 (Last visited on January 4, 2021).
27.  https://www.constitutionofindia.net/historical_constitutions/karachi_resolution__1931__1st%20January%201931#:~:text=The%20Karachi%20Resolution%20was%20a,at%20its%201931%20Karachi%20session.&text=It%20reiterated%20the%20Congress%20Party's,'%20or%20'complete%20independence'. (Last visited on January 4, 2021).
28. Â AIR 2006 Bom 44, 2006 (1) BomCR 468.
29. Â Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v Union Of India and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1789.
30. Â Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator, 1981 AIR 746.
31. Â 1985 SCC (3) 545.
32. Â Supra note 25.
33. Â Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-15534 OF 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7418-19/92 and 12353-55/95).
34. Â Appeal (civil) 6009-6010 of 2001.
35. Â 1992 AIR 789.
36. Â Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2009.
37. Â Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1976.
38. Â The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, No.39, Acts of Parliament, 1987.
39. Â The Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, No. 40, Acts of Parliament, 1996.
40. Â The Scheme was announced on August 25, 2015 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the key objectives of 10,000 crore startup funding pool, reduction in patent registration fees, Improved Bankruptcy Code, to ensure a 90-day exit window, Freedom from inspections for first 3 years of operation, Freedom from Capital Gain Tax for first 3 years of operation, Freedom from tax for first 3 years of operation, Self-certification compliance, Created an Innovation hub, under the Atal Innovation Mission, To target 5 lakh schools, and involve 10 lakh children in innovation-related programmes, New schemes to provide IPR protection to startup firms, built Startup Oasis as Rajasthan Incubation Center.
41. Â The Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP) was launched by the Government of India during 1978 and implemented during 1980. The aim of the program is to provide employment opportunities to the poor as well as opportunities to develop their skill sets so as to improve their living conditions.
42. Â Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment (TRYSEM) aims at providing basic technical and entrepreneurial skill to the rural poor in the age group of 18-35 years enable them take up income generating activities (self/wage employment).Â
43. Â It aims to enhance a livelihood and security in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.Â
44. Â Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1369.
45. Â Randhir Singh v Union Of India & Ors., 1982 AIR 879.
46. Â The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.14 Equality before law- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.Â
47. Â The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.48A Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.Â
48. Â Ms. Sunita Sanghi & Dr. Sakshi Khurana, National Employment Policy of India: A Perspective, NITI Aayog (January 4, 2021 3 PM), https://www.niti.gov.in/niti/content/national-employment-policy-india-perspectiv.Â
49. Â Yogita Seth Sharma, Labour Ministry to Fast-track National Employment Policy, THE ECONOMIC TIMES (January 4, 2021 3 PM), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/labour-ministry-to-fast-track-national-employment-policy/articleshow/76422702.cms. Â

Author Name: Divyashree Dacha, pursuing LL.M in Constitutional Law from Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad