Question map
Under the Indian Constitution, concentration of wealth violates
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 2: the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
This provision is explicitly enshrined in Article 39 of the Indian Constitution, which falls under Part IV (DPSPs). Specifically, Article 39(c) directs the State to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
- Article 39(b) further complements this by advocating for the equitable distribution of material resources.
- While concentration of wealth may indirectly affect Equality (Option 1) or the Concept of Welfare (Option 4), the Constitution provides a specific, direct mandate against it only under the DPSPs.
- Right to Freedom (Option 3) primarily deals with individual liberties and is not directly violated by wealth concentration.
Thus, the DPSP acts as a constitutional guide for the State to create a socialistic pattern of society by preventing economic monopolies.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a 'Free Hit' question. It tests the most basic distinction between Fundamental Rights (Justiciable) and DPSP (Non-justiciable goals). If you missed this, stop reading current affairs and fix your Polity static core immediately.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Does the concentration of wealth violate the Right to Equality under the Indian Constitution?
- Statement 2: Does the concentration of wealth violate the Directive Principles of State Policy under the Indian Constitution?
- Statement 3: Does the concentration of wealth violate the Right to Freedom under the Indian Constitution?
- Statement 4: Does the concentration of wealth violate the concept of welfare under the Indian Constitution?
- Explicitly identifies as a constitutional planning principle that the economic system should not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the detriment of the common good.
- Ties distribution of material resources to an egalitarian aim — directly linking concentration of wealth with a constitutional objective to prevent harm to equality and livelihood.
- Reiterates Directive Principles that require the State to secure distribution and control of material resources so as to prevent concentration of wealth.
- Frames prevention of wealth concentration as part of promoting social and economic justice within constitutional policy.
- Explains that the Constitution’s notion of equality is linked to social justice and remedial measures (e.g., reservations) to give real meaning to equality of opportunity.
- Supports the view that economic disparities (such as concentrated wealth) undermine practical equality and the Constitution’s social-justice objectives.
- Explicitly lists as a basic directive that the economic system must not result in concentration of wealth and means of production to the detriment.
- Frames distribution of ownership and control of material resources as a constitutional planning objective opposing concentration.
- Identifies Article 39(b) and (c) which direct state policy to distribute ownership and prevent concentration of wealth.
- States that laws implementing these socialistic Directive Principles (Article 39(b),(c)) are protected from being void on grounds of contravening certain Fundamental Rights, underscoring their normative force.
- Explains that Directive Principles aim to establish social and economic democracy and a welfare state, the normative backdrop opposing wealth concentration.
- Clarifies that Directive Principles are non-justiciable and advisory, affecting how violations are addressed (policy action rather than direct judicial remedy).
Lists components of Right to Freedom including 'to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business' (Article 19 freedoms).
A student could ask whether laws that limit economic activity to prevent extreme wealth concentration would amount to restrictions on the Article 19 freedom to carry on business, and then check doctrine of 'reasonable restrictions'.
Notes that Right to Property was removed from Fundamental Rights (44th Amendment) and is now a legal right under Article 300-A, separate from Part III freedoms.
Use this to argue that property/wealth per se is not a fundamental freedom, so measures redistributing property may be assessed differently than limits on Article 19 freedoms.
Explains right to property is not part of basic structure and can be regulated by ordinary parliamentary law; protection is against executive but not legislative action.
A student could infer that legislative redistributive measures targeting wealth concentration can be constitutionally enacted and then compare their impact on Article 19 freedoms.
States the Constitution's liberalism is linked to social justice (e.g., reservations) — indicating the framers accepted affirmative state action to correct inequalities.
One could extend this to consider whether anti-concentration laws are analogous to other social-justice measures that justify limits on certain freedoms for redistribution.
Gives examples (censorship, bans) where the state restricts individual freedoms for other interests, implying freedoms under Article 19 are not absolute.
A student might use this pattern to investigate how courts balance competing interests and apply 'reasonable restriction' tests when economic regulation limits freedom.
- Directive Principles explicitly require that the economic system should not result in concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
- Frames prevention of wealth concentration as a constitutional objective tied to promoting welfare and social justice.
- Explains that rising national income (GDP) may not increase welfare if income is concentrated in few hands.
- Provides the economic mechanism by which concentration of wealth can undermine aggregate welfare.
- Sets out that Directive Principles aim to establish a welfare state and promote social and economic democracy.
- Signals that welfare is a constitutional value under Part IV, linking structural economic goals (like distribution) to the welfare concept.
- [THE VERDICT]: Absolute Sitter. Direct lift from Article 39(c) text found in Laxmikanth (Chapter: DPSP) and NCERT Class XI (Indian Constitution at Work).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Socialist' category of Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the specific 'Socialist' DPSPs: Art 38 (Social Order), Art 39(b) (Distribution of material resources), Art 39(d) (Equal pay for equal work), Art 41 (Right to work), and Art 42 (Just and humane conditions). Contrast these with Liberal-Intellectual DPSPs like Art 44 (UCC) and Art 50 (Separation of Judiciary).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not use 'General English' logic (e.g., 'Inequality is the opposite of Equality, so it must be Option A'). Use 'Constitutional Text' logic. Ask: 'Where does the specific phrase *concentration of wealth* appear in the bare act?' It appears verbatim in Article 39(c).
The Directive Principles require that the economic system not result in concentration of wealth and that ownership be distributed to serve the common good.
High-yield for UPSC: connects constitutional policy (DPSPs) to economic justice debates and questions on distributive aims of the Constitution. Helps answer questions on state economic obligations, planning, and tensions between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- Geography of India ,Majid Husain, (McGrawHill 9th ed.) > Chapter 15: Regional Development and Planning > PLANNING IN INDIA > p. 1
- Politics in India since Independence, Textbook in political science for Class XII (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 3: Politics of Planned Development > Planning Commission > p. 48
Equality in the Constitution is read with a social-justice orientation, meaning economic inequalities can undermine equality of opportunity and dignity.
Essential for essays and mains answers: links Articles on equality with broader social policy, frames arguments about whether economic measures/inequalities implicate Fundamental Rights. Enables comparisons between formal legal equality and substantive/economic equality.
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 10: THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION > Check your progress > p. 227
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > III I Fundamental Rights > p. 30
The constitutional scheme accepts remedial state action (e.g., reservations) to restore equality of opportunity where social or economic inequality persists.
Useful for spot questions on Article 16(4), reservations, and policy legitimacy — shows how affirmative action is used to counterbalance structural inequalities including economic concentration. Helps craft balanced answers on permissible state interventions.
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 2: RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION > Right to Constitutional Remedies > p. 33
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 10: THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION > Check your progress > p. 227
Mandates distribution of ownership/control of material resources and forbids economic concentration detrimental to the common good.
High-yield for questions on Directive Principles and economic justice; connects directly to land reforms, nationalisation and policy measures aimed at reducing inequality. Mastery enables answers on constitutional aims, legislative intent, and justification for redistributive laws.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > CONFLICT BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 114
- Geography of India ,Majid Husain, (McGrawHill 9th ed.) > Chapter 15: Regional Development and Planning > PLANNING IN INDIA > p. 1
Directive Principles are advisory norms in Part IV and are not enforceable by courts.
Crucial for distinguishing remedies available under Fundamental Rights versus policy direction under DPSP; important for questions on constitutional remedies, governance limits, and how socio-economic goals are pursued through legislation rather than direct judicial enforcement.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > IDirective Principles of State Policy > p. 30
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 2: RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION > Non-justiciable rights > p. 46
Implementation of DPSP (e.g., abolishing zamindari, redistributive laws) has conflicted with Fundamental Rights, prompting amendments and legal adjustments.
Essential for essays and mains answers on constitutional evolution, landmark amendments and judicial balancing between individual rights and societal goals; useful for analyzing why Parliament may amend rights to effectuate DPSP objectives.
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 2: RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION > Non-justiciable rights > p. 46
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > CONFLICT BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 114
Right to Freedom covers personal liberties including freedom of speech, assembly, movement and the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business, which is the constitutional prism for assessing economic constraints.
High-yield: clarifies which economic activities receive constitutional protection and where limits may lie; connects to questions on reasonable restrictions, economic regulation and individual liberty. Mastering this helps tackle questions about whether economic arrangements or policies can be challenged as infringements of Article 19 freedoms.
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > III I Fundamental Rights > p. 30
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties IJl > p. 117
- Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 5: DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS > Right to Freedom > p. 81
The 'Next Logical Question' is Article 31C. This article saves laws enacted to implement Art 39(b) and 39(c) from being declared void for violating Art 14 (Equality) and Art 19 (Freedom). This proves that DPSP 39(b/c) can actually *override* the Right to Equality in specific legislative contexts.
Apply the 'Writ Test'. If concentration of wealth violated the 'Right to Equality' (a Fundamental Right), you could go to the Supreme Court tomorrow under Article 32 and demand the redistribution of a billionaire's assets. Since you cannot do that, it is not a violation of a justiciable Fundamental Right, but a violation of a non-justiciable Directive Principle.
Mains GS-3 (Inclusive Growth) & GS-2 (Social Justice): When writing answers on wealth inequality (e.g., Oxfam Reports, K-shaped recovery), explicitly quote 'Constitutional mandate under Art 39(c)' rather than just saying 'inequality is bad'. This adds administrative weight to your arguments.