NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

Project for
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO GOOD GOVER-
NANCE

on
Doctrine of Public Trust, Distributive Justice and Good Gover-
nance: A Constitutional Perspective

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Prof. (Dr.) Rajiv Khare Subodhika Sharma
2017 LL.M 01

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Doctrine of Public Trust vis-à-vis Distributive Justice
3. Doctrine of Public Trust and Distributive Justice under the Constitution of India
4. Doctrine of Public Trust and Good Governance
5. Conclusions
Bibliography

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The formulation of social and economic objectives in national constitutions owes its origin essen-
tially to the realisation that the content of political freedom is impaired by the absence of social jus -
tice, and that without adequate protection for social and economic rights, constitutional guarantees
of what are known as “classical individual liberties” such as the right to equality, liberty of person
and freedom of speech and association may lose much of their significance. Accordingly, most
modern constitutions contain declarations of social and economic principles which emphasise
among other things the duty of the State to strive for social security, and to provide work, education
and proper conditions of employment for its citizens. By their very nature economic and social
rights are not suitable for enforcement through legal action and a constitutional declaration is essen-
tially in the nature of a pledge that the policies of the State will be consistently directed towards the
attainment of certain ends and that legislation will be based on certain guiding principles.
There was a time, known as the laissez faire era, when the state was mainly concerned with the
maintenance of law and order and defence of the country against external aggression. Such a restric-
tive concept of the State no longer remains valid. Today we are living in an era of welfare state
which seeks to promote the prosperity and well being of the people.
The makers of the Constitution had realised that in a poor country like India, political democracy
would be useless without economic democracy. Accordingly, they incorporated a few provisions in
the Constitution with a view to achieve amelioration of the socio-economic conditions of the
masses. The leaders of India’s freedom movement visualised that in the new dispensation following
political freedom, the people should have the fullest opportunities for advancement in the social and
economic spheres and that the State should make suitable provision for ensuring such progress.
Among the fundamental rights adopted by the All Parties’ Conference (1928) was a provision enti-
tling every citizen to free elementary education and another which required the enactment of suit-
able laws for the maintenance of health and fitness for work of all citizens, a living wage for every
worker, the protection of motherhood, the welfare of children and provision of assistance in old age,
infirmity and unemployment. Similar provisions were also contained in the Declaration of Funda-
mental Rights, adopted by the Indian National Congress in 1931, which, in addition, specifically de-
clared that “in order to end the exploitation of the masses, political freedom must include real eco -
nomic freedom of the starving millions”, and that the organization of economic life must conform to
the principles of justice.
In a number of pronouncements, the Supreme Court has insisted that these Directive Principles seek
to introduce the concept of a welfare state in the country. Thus, we find the Supreme Court observ-
ing in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal:1
“The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state at the federal level as well as at the
State. In a welfare state the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people.”

1 (1996) 4 SCC 37.

Originally, the Directive Principles were more akin to moral, rather than to legal, precepts as they
did not have much value from a legal point of view. The main ida underlying these principles was
that they would serve an educational purpose, and might serve as restraints on those who come in
power. These persons would have to pay some respect to those principles while exercising power,
and could be held accountable for ignoring them before the electorate if not before a court of law. In
the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar had said that a party which failed to implement these
principle would stand to lose in the next elections. Thus, the accountability to enforce these princi-
ples was left to the political process. With the passage of time, however, greater emphasis has come
to be laid on the fulfilment of the goals set out in these principles.

CHAPTER 2
DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST VIS-À-VIS DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
The doctrine of public trust has evolved over the years to emerge as one of the core principles for
the judiciary to substantiate the legitimacy of governmental action that interferes with the use by the
general public of natural resources. The incorporation of this doctrine into our legal system has re-
sulted in the imposition of a much required check upon governmental authorities who seek to divest
State control over such natural resources in favour of private parties.
The public trust doctrine is based on the notion that the public holds inviolable rights in certain
lands and resources, and that regardless of title ownership, and that the state retains certain rights in
such lands and resources in trust for the public.This conception of public rights has two ancient
bases. First, under Roman law the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the sea shore were
the property of no man but rather were common to all. Second, early English common law provided
that title to tidelands had two components: “the King’s right of jus privatum, which could be alien-
ated, and the jus publicum rights of navigation and fishing, which were held by the King in inalien-
able trust for the public”. Various public properties; including rivers, the seashore, and the air, are
held by the government in trusteeship for the uninterrupted use of the public. The Sovereign could
not make clandestine transfer of public trust properties which the public had a right to enjoy to any
private parties if such transfer when affected could interfere with the interest of the public at large.
Concerted efforts have been adopted to incorporate this doctrine to protect an array of public prop-
erties like non traversable waters, public land, and sand parks and to relate it to both public and pri-
vate lands. The Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on Human Environment clearly indicates
this determining proposition: “The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora
and fauna and especially representative samples of natural system, must be safeguarded for the ben-
efit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate.
Through this influence, agencies can be forced to prove that their actions are not harmful to the en-
vironment to that extent that they will result in the destruction of a public resource. If the agencies
fall short of providing a more environmentally benign alternative, then a Public Trust law suit can
be brought up. The various provisions of the Constitution of India concerning ‘environmental pro-
tection’ and, thereby, to establish the fact that the Indian Constitution is a supreme document of
‘trust’ and the state as a ‘trustee’ of all natural resources is under a legal duty to protect them. The
fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, embody the rights of the beneficiaries
and the directive principles of state policy in Part IV, embody the duties of the trustee i.e., the state.
Distributive justice means fair disbursement of common advantages and common burdens by a
community to its members. In other words distributive justice refers to what some consider as so-
cially just with respect to the allocation of goods in a society. Principles of distributive justice are
prescriptive principles designed to guide the allocation of the benefits and burdens of economic ac-
tivity. Therefore, a community in which material goods are allocated equally to all members of so-
ciety and where incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise is considered as a society guided by
the principles of distributive justice.2

2 https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/distributive-justice/
 CHAPTER 3
DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution embody the jurisprudential doctrine of “distributive justice.”
The Constitution permits and even directs the State what may be termed “distributive justice.” The
concept of distributive justice in the sphere of law-making connote, inter alia, the removal of eco-
nomic inequalities rectifying the injustice resulting from dealings and transactions between un-
equals in society.3
SOCIAL ORDER BASED ON JUSTICE
Article 38(1) directs the state to strive “to promote the welfare of the people by securing and may
protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political
shall inform all the institutions of the national life.”
Article 38 needs to be read along with Art. 14. This directive reaffirms what has been declared in
the Preamble to the Constitution, viz., the function of the Republic is to secure, inter alia, social,
economic and political justice. To secure justice to the people under the law, Courts with broad
powers have been established in the country.4
Article 38 envisages not only legal justice but socio-economic justice as well. The Supreme Court
has explained the idea of social justice as follows:5
“The Constitution commands justice. liberty, equality and fraternity as supreme values to usher in
the egalitarian social, economic and political democracy. Social justice, equality and dignity of
person are cornerstones of social democracy. The concept of ‘social justice’ which the Constitution

3 Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986) 3 SCC 156.
4 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 1416 (LexisNexis, 7th ed., 2014).
5 Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union AIR 1997 SC 645.
 of India engrafted, consists of diverse principles essential for the orderly growth and development
of personality of every citizen. ‘Social Justice’ is thus an integral part of justice in the generic sense.
Justice is the genus, of which social justice is one of its species. Social Justice is a dynamic device
to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak, dalits, tribals and deprived sections of the society…..”
Article 38(2) directs the state to strive “to minimise the inequalities in income,” and endeavour “to
eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only amongst individuals but also
groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.”
The Supreme Court has read Arts. 19(1)(d), 21 and 38(2) together and has insisted that people in the
hilly areas should have access to roads, as without roads their economic condition cannot improve.
Under Art. 19(1)(d) ever person has a right to move freely throughout India. Under Art 21, every
person has a right to his life which embraces “not only physical existence of life but the equality of
life” and for residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life itself.6
The Supreme Court has observed that if a law is made to further socio-economic justice, it is prima
facie reasonable and in public interest. In other words, if it is in negation, it is unconstitutional. 7
Article 38 is supplemented by Art. 39 which lays stress upon certain aspects of economic justice.

PRINCIPLES OF POLICY TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE STATE

Article 39 requires the state, in particular, to direct its policy towards securing:
(a) that all citizens, irrespective of sex, equally have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;
(b) the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best
to subserve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and
means of production to the common detriment;
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and tender age of children are not
abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter into vocations unsuited to
their age and strength;
(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in condi-
tions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and
against moral and material abandonment.
DISTRIBUTIVE ECONOMIC SYSTEM: ARTICLES 39 (b) AND (c)

6 Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram AIR 1986 SC 847.

7 Kasturi Lal v. Sate of J&K AIR 1980 SC 1992.
Articles 39 (b) and (c) are very significant constitutional provisions as they affect the entire eco-
nomic system in India. Directive Principles contained in Arts. 39 (b) and (c) have assumed great im-
portance and have figured in a number of judicial pronouncements after the enactment of Art 31C.
Arts. 39 (b) and (c) relate to distribution of ownership and control of material resources of the com -
munity. An Act falling under clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39, must have operation in the economic
system and concentration of wealth. Taking over of management by the government of a sick textile
mill has been characterised as being in furtherance of Arts. 39(b) and (c).8
The aim of socialism is the distribution of the material resources of the community in such a man-
ner as to subserve the common good. A socialistic state secures to its people socio-economic jus-
tice. Socialism means distributive justice-an idea ingrained in Art. 39(b).
Article 39(b) contemplates measures to secure equitable distribution of community resources. It
does not mention either movable or immovable property. The actual expression used in Art 39 (b) is
‘material resources of the community’. The term ‘material resources’ has been given a very broad
connotation by the Supreme Court. The term is wide enough to cover not only natural or physical
resources but also movable or immovable properties. 9 In this connection, the Supreme Court has ob-
served in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy:10
“And material resources of the community in the context of re-ordering the national economy em-
braces all the national wealth, not merely natural resources, all the private and public sources of
meeting material needs, not merely public possessions. Everything of value or use in the material
world is material resource and the individual being a member of the community his resources are
part of those of the community…."

All things which are capable of producing wealth for the community would be material resources. 11
In Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Co. 12, the constitutional validity of the Coking
Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, and the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act,
1972, was under challenge. The Court said that when Art. 39(b) refers to material resources of the
community, it does not refer only to resources owned by the community as a whole but it refers also
to resources owned by individual members of the community. The expression ‘material resources of
the community’ is not confined to natural resources; it is not confined to resources owned by the
public; it means and includes all resources, natural and man-made, public and private owned.
Therefore, “all things which are capable of producing wealth for the community would be material
resources.”
8 N.T. Corporation Ltd. v. Sitaram Mills, AIR 1986 SC 1234.
9 Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavur Bai, AIR 1984 SC 326.
10 AIR 1978 SC 215.
11 Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 938.
12 AIR 1983 SC 239.
An Act acquiring an electricity undertaking relates to Art. 39(b) as electric energy generated by
the company constitutes material resources of the community within the scope and meaning of Art.
39(b) and the object of the legislation has a direct nexus with the objective of distributing the mate-
resources so as to subserve the common good.13
Coal is one of the most important known sources of energy and, therefore, a vital national re-
source.14
The word ‘distribution in Art. 39(b) has been given an expansive interpretation. It does not merely
mean that the property of one should be taken over and distributed to others. This is only one mode
of distribution but not the only mode. Nationalisation is also a distributive process as it prevents
concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and, thus, benefits the society at large. 15 The idea of
nationalisation of the material resource of the community cannot be divorced from the idea of distri-
bution of that resource in the community in a manner which advanced common good.16
What is required in terms of the constitutional scheme under Article 39(b) and Article 14 of the
Constitution of India is to make essential commodities available at a fair price. 17
On Art. 39(b), the Supreme Court has observed:18
“The principle embodied in Article 39(b) of the Constitution is one of the essential directives to
bring about the distribution of the material resources. It should give full play to the distributive jus-
tice. It fulfils the basic purpose of restructuring the economic order, Article 39(b), therefore, has a
social mission. It embraces the entire material resources of the community. Its task is to distribute
such resources. Its goal is to undertake distribution as best to subserve the common good.”
Again, in State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavur Bai, 19 upholding nationalisation of stage carriages,
the Supreme Court has given an expansive interpretation to the word ‘distribution’ in Art. 39(b):
“The word ‘distribution’ does not merely mean that property of one should he taken over and dis-
tributed to others like land reforms where the lands from the big landlords are taken away and
given to landless labourers....That is only one of the modes of distribution but not the only mode….”
Again because the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 was enacted to secure
the principles specified in Article 39 and seeks to give effect to the larger public interest it should be
given primacy over the provisions of the Companies Act because of its higher public purpose.20
There exists a difference of judicial opinion on the question of interpretation of the words “material
resources of the community” to be found in Art. 39(1). Some judges have favoured a broad view

13 Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, AAIR 1990 SC 123.
14 Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Co., AIR 1983 SC 239.
15 Supra n.12.
16 Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Thana Electric Supply Co., AIR 1990 SC 153.
17 Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2007) 2 SCC 640.
18 Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, AIR 1997 SC 688.
19 AIR 1984 SC 326.
20 Tata Motors Ltd. v. Pharmaceuticals Products of India Ltd. (2008) 7 SCC 619.
holding that Art. 39(b) covers “all resources, natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned.”
Some other Judges prefer a narrow view advocating that Art. 19(b) does not cover “what is privately
owned.”
NO CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH: ARTICLE 39(c)
Article 39(c) contemplates measures for preventing concentration of wealth and means of produc-
tion in a few private hands. The Supreme Court has explained the significance of Art. 39(c) in the
following words:21
“.....Though the expression ‘economic system’ is used in Art. 39(c), that Article has not the object of
changing the economic system generally, but is confined to only preventing concentration of wealth
and means of production to the common detriment. What this clause envisages is that the State
should secure the operation of he economic system in such a way as not to result in the concentra-
tion of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. Where there is already concen-
tration of wealth and means of production which is to the common detriment, the law under Art. 39
(b) would be only to break up or regulate as may be necessary the concentration of wealth and
means of production.”
Art 39 also clarifies that carrying on of a trade and business is a legitimate function of the state. The
task of Art 39(b) is to distribute the material resources of the community.
Measures of agrarian reform, such as, vesting of ownership of land in the tiller himself, secure the
objectives mentioned in Arts. 39(b) and (c).22
A law acquiring the Madras Race Club has been held to have no relation with Arts. 39(b) and (c).
The reason is that the club owns no ‘material resources’ which need to be distributed in terms of Art.
39(b). Also. the club has nothing to do with the operation of any “economic system” as is envisaged
by Art. 39(c). There is no nexus between the impugned law and the objects contained in 39(b) and
(c). 23
Taxation of capital and wealth under entry 86. List I, has been characterised as an appropriate
method for preventing concentration of wealth as envisaged by Art. 39(c). A provision in the In-
come-tax Act authorising acquisition of property in case its value is shown less than its market
value by less than 15% in the instrument of transfer has been held to have been enacted to secure
the purposes of these Directive Principles.24
Articles 39(b) and (c) do not have reference merely to acquisition of land. Their objective is to pre-
vent concentration of wealth in any one individual. When the State takes over bus transport from
private hands. the beneficial effects resulting therefrom will be passed on to the community at large

21 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.

22 H.S. Srinivasa Raghuvachar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1987 SC 1518.
23 K.R. Lakshamanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1996 SC 1153.
24 Mahavir Metal Works v. Union of India, AIR 1974 Del 73.
and this fulfils the objectives of Arts. 39(b) and (c). 25 Concentration of large blocks of land in the
hands of a few individuals is contrary to Arts. 39(b) and (c). Therefore, legislation for agrarian re -
form and abolition of zamindari to fulfil the objectives laid down in Arts. 39(b) and (c).
The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 which nationalised the business of gen-
eral insurance was enacted in order to serve better the need of the economy by securing the devel -
opment of general insurance business in the best interest of the community and to ensure that the
operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth to the common
detriment. This monopoly over the business of general insurance was ended by the Insurance Regu-
latory and Development Authority Act, 1999. Although the insurance companies are now required
to compete with others in the field, but the same may not necessarily mean that the public sector in-
surance companies must have a level playing field with the private insurance companies. Being a
State they have a different role to play. However that is not to say that as a matter of policy, statu-
tory or otherwise, the insurance companies are bound to regulate all contracts of insurance having
the statement of directive principles in mind but fairness or reasonableness on the part of the insur-
ance companies must appear in all of its dealings.26

CHAPTER 4
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
Public services suggested for such a focus are to do with:
• Basic needs of roti (food), rozgar (employment), and makaan (house).
• Safety and security aspects- police and the judiciary.
• Foundations of a welfare state- hospitals and schools.

25 V. Parthasarthi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 Mad 7.

26 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera,(2008) 10 SCC 404.
• Basic infrastructure services- water and electricity.
• Development agencies- municipalities and land registration.
• Key Financial services- banks and income tax filing.

The most critical indicator of good governance is how well the basic essential public services tar-
geted for the poor people in the country are reaching them and are availed by them without having
to pay bribe or approaching middlemen. And, more specifically, whether any poor are left out of the
public service because they cannot afford to pay bribe or are not fortunate enough to know a ‘con-
tact.’ That should be a bedrock criterion. If a government cannot ensure zero corruption in these
specific basic essential public programs, how can it root out corruption in the country? Efforts have
to be addressed first at cleansing such basic essential services. Three basic essential programs stand
out- Public Distribution Scheme, housing, and NREGS- for such focus. That is roti, rozgar, and
makaan. The NREGS was renamed in 2009 as MGNREGS by adding “Mahatma Gandhi” to
NREGS.
Also, poverty in the country cannot be contained without making these ‘flagship’ programs of any
government corruption-free. Of these first three services, PDS has been the longest program and by
and large, uniform across the country in terms of nomenclature and modalities of operations. This
has three phases- first, identification of those who qualify as BPL by accordingly issuing a recogni-
tion card. Second is affiliating or assigning the card-holders to a particular PDS depot, which in turn
is allocated with food and essential items, such as kerosene, to supply to the cardholders. Third is to
ensure whether the cardholder is actually able to draw on the essential items as per the eligibility,
and continuously month after month, at subsidised prices of the government. The BPL card and the
ration card are issued by different departments of the state government on the basis of certain crite-
ria. Whereas the ration card indicates the extent of entitlement for subsidised food and other items,
the BPL card indicates the below-poverty-line status.
The nature and extent of corruption involved in these three basic services targeting BPL households
of the country are similar. In the case of PDS, over the years, the numerous appraisals have been
critical for the extent of corruption and the number of families left out. And also for the pilferage.
But whatever correctives were taken from time to time were without much impact. Even the Deputy
Chairman of Planning Commission, Montek Singh Ahluwalia has observed (October 2010) after
being in that vital post for over seven years that “only 50 percent of the money spent on PDS
reaches the poor.” Three national surveys indicated that in 2005 as high as 50 percent of poor were
without BPL cards. The midterm appraisal of the Ninth Plan observed that “the number of house-
holds benefited by the PDS was so low, the percentage was as low as 5 in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh
reflect the failure of PDS in reaching out the poor. Though NREGS has been in operation only for
five years, many studies have been conducted on the extent of corruption in this service as in the
case of PDS. Even the vigilance and audit departments as well as the parliamentary committees and
independent studies have all equally pointed out the shortcomings in the reach of these essential ser-
vices and how they were crippled by corruption involving the poor and the very poor. Because of
the concern about NREGS at the highest level of the government, special initiatives like Social Au-
dit, use of new technologies, and monitoring tools were availed to contain corruption in the service.
Housing schemes are initiated and operated by state governments. Different states have different
types of schemes. Even within a state there could be more than one scheme for housing to the poor-
est of the poor and the aam admi. By and large, every state has schemes with some priority to en -
able families to have a pucca built-up house or get a plot of land for building the house. The govern-
ments have different targets toward achieving this objective and budgets for the schemes. This pro-
gram has been going through change in priority from time to time, mostly driven by political com-
pulsions of the party in power.
The NREGS employment program, on the other hand, is centrally funded mostly, but administered
by the district administration. This is a relatively recent program, first selectively introduced in
2005, and later extended to most districts of the country. Under this program, one person in every
poor family is assured of employment for 100 days at certain daily wages—this varies marginally
from state to state. For this, the eligible poor have to register and obtain a card and register again at
a nearby panchayat for work. Locally relevant projects or works are notified from time to time to be
taken up under the NREGS. If employment could not be provided, wages for the minimum assured
days are to be paid. Registered seekers of work are assigned to different works- works that could be
locally taken up under this scheme are designated by the government from time to time. The budget
allocation for NREGS has gone up four times from less than rs. 100 billion five years ago to over
400 billion in 2010. This program, backed by an Act of Parliament, has provided for after initial
complaints galore of corruption and misappropriation. Obligatory Social Audit is one such measure
provided for.
Users of PDS were tracked in CMS surveys nationwide more than a couple of times in the last
decade; whereas, NREGS and housing services were tracked only once nationally during this pe-
riod. Reports of corruption in all the three services are frequently reported in the news media. Why
could not these “flagship” programs be made or become corruption-free, despite concern, attention,
and review at highest level of the government? A significant percent of citizens at whom these
schemes are targeted acknowledge existence of corruption and some have also acknowledged the
experience of paying bribe in availing the service. Over the years there should have been a decline
in the percentage of people paying bribe to get access to these services, and the decline should have
been evident and acknowledged by these very people.
Ambiguity in criteria is something politicians and bureaucrats love to ensure so that there is certain
subjective element in deciding inclusion or exclusion of a household. Those in policymaking, par-
ticularly the political leaders in power, keep advocating change very often in the criteria for eligibil-
ity, and in the very scope of the program. Of course, the process needs to be reviewed from time to
time and the households which move up into the above poverty level need to be excluded from the
eligibility. But such a revision cannot be for the political advantage of the party in power and as
and when such a political need arises. Those criteria are publicly talked about the government in
power, differently at different occasions, particularly on the eve of elections to the state legislature.

Suggestions for PDS Service

• Information and Transparency
- display of price, stock and time of distribution at the Fair Price Shop (FPS).
- advance information about next date of distribution.

• Procedures and Redressal

- Issuance of new cards, changes in the existing ration card with least procedural delays.
- Complaint hooks and redressal- frequent supervisory visits, interaction with public, and mitiga-
tion of their problems.
• New Technologies
- Promoting usage of FM, SMS, and community radio.
- Updating of information on web sites for frequent monitoring, verification of information re-

garding stock, and distribution at retailer’s level.

Besides improving monitoring system and regular inspection of retail outlets, states could consider
some measures for minimizing leakages, check diversions of supplies, and ensure better compliance
of rules and regulations.
• Issuance of a ration card which is valid across the state: Since a large number of poor house-
holds migrate from their native place in search of work, relaxing area restriction would enable
them to avail the PDS anywhere in the state. It will also save them from the inconvenience and
hassle faced to revisit the Food and Civil Supplies Office every time a household moves out of
the native place.
• Computerization and use of IT will increase the level of transparency and accountability in the
PDS. Distribution of computerized ration cards and precoded coupons or vouchers will keep a
check over bogus ration cards.
• FPS under panchayat/Self-help Group (SHG): Gram panchayats and self-help groups should
be encouraged to manage fair price shops in their localities.
• Social Audit of fair price shops/PDS dealers: Gram panchayats in association with civil society
groups under the supervision of a senior audit district-level government official should periodi-
cally conduct Social Audit of all registers maintained at the FPS level.
• Vigilance Committee at village/block level: Formation and strengthening of such committees
will ensure efficient and timely delivery of grains to eligible households. States could also ensure
that distribution of food grains is done in presence of a member of the panchayat or a local civil-
society activist.

Suggestions for NREGS Service

NREGA guarantees livelihood security to rural households and is an important service for the BPL
population as per its design. It is therefore essential to eliminate corruption in the service and enable
BPL households to avail it as well as ensure that no one is deprived from availing the scheme.
• Local Panchayat
Panchayat should be sensitised to actively participate in selecting the works to take up under
NREGS and be a referral for identifying the needy and see that only eligible are employed. Gram
Sabha should discuss implication at least once a year.
• Complaint Redressal
- Anyone should be able to make a complaint as a right, without seeking any contact.
- They should know whom to report in case of any problem in either case.
- Help desk/helpline should be put in place to address complaints of households, as well as to give

information on project sites.

• Awareness among the BPL Households

- Beneficiaries should be sensitised about the entitlements applicable to them under the scheme.
- Leaflets and brochures in simple local language, explaining features of the scheme, should be
distributed.
- Use of local vernacular newspapers, radio, TV, films, and cultural forms should be promoted to
help raise awareness about the scheme.
- Local workers should be made aware that there is no need to look for a contact in order to get ac-
cess to the scheme, and about where to seek guidance or make complaints.

Suggestions for Housing Scheme

- Involvement of panchayat at every stage of implementation of housing project.
- Transparent selection of beneficiaries through gram sabha. There should be a register of the
needy of shelter with annual updates.
- Camps at the village level to identify beneficiaries and to inform them about the details of
schemes.
- Raising awareness about the schemes and eligibility criteria through multiple channels.
- Spot verification for housing site identified by the panchayat for building houses.
- Validation to find out whether the names given by the panchayat are the needy ones.
- Supplying of cement, bricks, doors and windows, and other materials at low cost.
- Organising online payment for depositing the cash benefit directly to the beneficiary's savings
account.
- Organising Jan adalats (courts) to address public grievances.
- Computerization of registers to improve service delivery.
- The list of eligible BPL persons/families should be publicly displayed.
- The beneficiary should be encouraged to come up with feedback on the quality of services.
- Independent Social Audit with participation of stakeholders and local academicians or active
civil society.
- The Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) has initiated studies on its various schemes. Such
studies should also focus on of corruption and actual experience and should also capture levels
with the procedures, the implementation process, quality of construction, and and so on. These
studies should be proactive and should help in taking corrective actions.
 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
From the above discussions on the doctrine and various case laws, it is evident that the state is not
the owner of the resources in the country but a trustee who holds fiduciary relationship with the
people. By accepting this task the government is expected to be loyal to the interests of its citizens
and to discharge its duty with the interest of the citizens at heart and involve them in decision-mak-
ing process concerning the management of natural and material resources in the country. The Public
Trust Doctrine may provide the means for increasing the effectiveness of distribution of means of
production and wealth. Thus, under this doctrine, the state has a duty as a trustee to protect and im-
prove the material resources of the country. While applying Art. 21 (right to life), the state is
obliged to take account of Directive Principles of State Policy. The state’s trusteeship duties have
been expanded.
The Directive Principles are designed to usher in a social and economic democracy in the country.
These principles obligate the State to take positive action in certain directions in order to promote
the welfare of the people and achieve economic democracy. These principles give directions to the
legislatures and the executive in India as regards the manner in which they should exercise their
power.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
• N. Bhaskara Rao, Good Governance, Sage Publications (2013).
• D. D. Basu, “Introduction to the Constitution of India”, Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur.
• J. N. Pandey, “Constitutional Law of India”, Central Law Agency, Allahabad.
• M. P. Jain, “Indian Constitutional Law”, Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur.

ARTICLES
• GOOD GOVERNANCE & IMPLEMENTATION IN ERA OF GLOBALIZATION , Deepali
Singh, Nafees A. Ansari and Shaifali Singh (The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. 70 No.
4).