Constitution of India
Article 47: Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health
Part IV — Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36–51)
Article 47 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: The State shall regard raising the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and improving public health as among its primary duties, and shall endeavour to prohibit the consumption — except for medicinal purposes — of intoxicating drinks and of drugs injurious to health. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. It is a non-justiciable Directive Principle — not enforceable in court directly. 2. It creates a moral and constitutional obligation on the State to prioritise nutrition, living standards, and public health. 3. The State must work toward prohibition of alcohol and harmful drugs, with an exception for medicinal use. 4. Courts have read it alongside Article 21 (Right to Life) to give it indirect enforceability. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Res extra commercium doctrine — Liquor trade is not a fundamental right; State can prohibit it (confirmed in Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka, 1995). 2. Harmonious construction — DPSPs like Article 47 must be read together with Fundamental Rights to achieve social welfare (State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, 1976).
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Irish Constitution (1937) — Article 45 (Directive Principles of Social Policy) Original provision: Non-justiciable social policy directives guiding the Irish State toward welfare of the people. What India kept: The entire framework of non-justiciable Directive Principles in Part IV was borrowed from Ireland. 2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) — Article 25 Original provision: Right to adequate standard of living including food, health, and medical care. What India kept: The emphasis on nutrition, public health, and standard of living as State duties. 3. Gandhian Principles — Mahatma Gandhi's constructive programme Original provision: Gandhi placed prohibition at the head of his four constructive programmes for nation-building. What India kept: The specific prohibition clause on intoxicating drinks and drugs. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Prohibition of intoxicants as a State duty — Gandhi's moral crusade against alcohol was translated into a constitutional directive. 2. Medicinal exception clause — Added on the floor of the Constituent Assembly (Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena's amendment) to balance prohibition with practical health needs. 3. Classified as Gandhian Principle DPSP — Grouped with Articles 40, 43, 46, 48 reflecting rural and social reconstruction ideology.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 23 and 24 November 1948 (CAD Volume VII) Draft Article number: 38 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces) — Moved the original amendment to add prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs at the end of Draft Article 38. 2. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces) — Proposed sub-amendment adding 'except for medicinal purposes'; argued prohibition would save ₹100 crore for labouring families. 3. Shri B.G. Kher (Bombay) — Strongly supported prohibition; cited Mahatma Gandhi's constructive programme and experiences of Madras and Bombay provinces. 4. Shri B.H. Khardekar (Kolhapur) — Opposed prohibition; argued it infringes personal liberty and cited failure of prohibition in America and Madras. 5. Shri Jaipal Singh (Bihar) — Opposed prohibition on grounds it would violate Adivasi religious customs, especially the use of rice beer in tribal ceremonies. 6. Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man — Moved amendment to insert the word 'tobacco' between 'drinks' and 'drugs'; the amendment was negatived. 7. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay) — Responded as Chairman of the Drafting Committee. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Prohibition vs. Personal Liberty — Khardekar argued prohibition violates individual freedom; supporters cited moral and economic benefits. 2. Tribal Rights — Jaipal Singh argued alcohol ban could infringe Adivasi religious practices; Ambedkar responded that the Sixth Schedule protects tribal areas from forced application of such laws. 3. Inclusion of Tobacco — Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man's amendment to include tobacco was rejected by the Assembly. FINAL OUTCOME: Tyagi's amendment (with Saksena's 'except for medicinal purposes' addition) was adopted; tobacco inclusion was rejected; Article 38 as amended was added to the Constitution. AMBEDKAR'S KEY STATEMENT: "There is no compulsion on the State to act on this principle. Whether to act on this principle and when to do so are left to the State and to public opinion."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand (1980) — Article 47 makes improvement of public health a 'paramount principle of governance'; municipal body cannot plead financial inability to escape sanitation duties. 2. State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) — DPSPs like Article 47 must be read harmoniously with Fundamental Rights to achieve social welfare goals. 3. Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India (1987) — Reaffirmed State's responsibility under Article 47 to safeguard public health; need for regulatory measures to control harmful substances. 4. Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) — Health and medical care are integral to the right to life under Article 21; State is constitutionally obliged to ensure them (read with Article 47). 5. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) — Failure of government hospital to provide timely medical treatment violates right to life; State's duty under Article 47 emphasised. 6. State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) — Linked the right to health with obligations imposed on State by Article 47. 7. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration — No fundamental right to trade in intoxicating substances; State can regulate or prohibit such trade per Article 47. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None specifically recorded on Article 47; however, the broader FR vs. DPSP tension (Champakam Dorairajan, 1951) held DPSPs subordinate to FRs — later harmonised. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Granville Austin — Called DPSPs (including Art. 47) the 'conscience of the Constitution', essential for meeting social, economic, and political justice requirements. 2. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (Ratlam, 1980) — Treated Article 47 as a 'paramount principle of governance' commanding affirmative State action for public health. 3. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Described DPSPs as 'novel features' of the Constitution providing 'social and economic democracy'.