INTRODUCTION

POVERTY IS A CURSE TO HUMANITY . MANY NATIONS OF THE WORLD ARE FACING THIS

PROBLEM AND ARE TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION . INDIA IS ONE AMONG THEM . IN OUR

COUNTRY ALSO CRORES OF PEOPLE ARE LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. REAL
DEVELOPMENT SETS IN ONLY WHEN THEIR LOT IS IMPROVED . GOVERNMENTS ARE TAKING

SEVERAL STEPS IN THIS REGARD . BUT BY AND LARGE THEY HAVE NOT YIELDED THE DESIRED

RESULT . POPULATION EXPLOSION IS THE MAIN HURDLE IN THE WAY OF REMOVAL OF

POVERTY . THE ROOT CAUSE OF POVERTY IS MAN’S SELFISHNESS . SOME PEOPLE AMASS

WEALTH AND EXPLOIT OTHERS. THE EXPLOITED REMAIN POOR . THE RICH ARE GETTING

RICHER AND THE POOR STILL POORER. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS FOR THIS . THE
WEALTH OF NATION IS NOT EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG ITS PEOPLE . THERE IS A

YAWNING GULF BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR. SOCIETY IS DIVIDED INTO HAVES AND

HAVE NOTS . ONLY FEW COUNTRIES PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY . SOME GET RICH
WHILE OTHERS REMAIN POOR. OUR COUNTRY HAS NO REASON TO SUFFER FROM POVERTY .

IT IS A LAND WITH GREAT NATURAL RESOURCES . BUT THESE ARE NOT PROPERLY UTILIZED .

ADDED TO THIS, A LARGE SECTION OF THE POPULATION IS NOT INDUSTRIOUS . PEOPLE ARE

NOT READY TO ACCEPT WHATEVER WORK COMES TO THEM AND DOES IT WELL. THIS
LETHARGY ALSO IS ONE OF THE CAUSES OF INDIA’S POVERTY . CRORES OF PEOPLE DO NOT

HAVE BASIC NEEDS FULFILLED . THEY DO NOT HAVE A SHELTER , PROPER CLOTHING OR

ENOUGH FOOD. MANY SPEND THEIR LIVES WITHOUT A FIXED HOME. THE MAHATMA
REALIZED THEIR REGLECTED STATE AND PLEADED FOR THEIR UPLIFTMENT . SINCE
INDEPENDENCE MANY SCHEMES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED TO ERADICATE POVERTY . BUT
THEY HAVE NOT MET WITH GREAT SUCCESS . ERADICATION OF POVERTY HAS BEEN ONE OF

THE CHIEF OBJECTIVES OF OUR PLANNING. FIFTY SEVEN YEARS OF POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE

FAILED TO BRING IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . GOVERNMENTS ARE THINKING OF SHORT

TERM MEASUES LIKE PROVIDING SUBSIDES ETC TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY. THE BENEFITS OF

THESE MEASURES ARE NOT REACHING THE REALLY POOR . MANY SELFISH OFFICIALS AND

MEDIATORS FOIL THESE SCHEMES. ERADICATION OF POVERTY HAS REMAINED ONLY AS AN

ATTRACTIVE ELECTION SLOGAN . SINCERE EFFORTS ARE NOT BEING MADE IN THIS REGARD .

THE PREAMBLE OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO

SECURE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL JUSTICE TO ALL THE CITIZENS. BUT TODAY’S CONDITION

OF THE COUNTRY IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THIS . AFTER THE CASE OF CORPORATE LOBBYING
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PARTICIPATION OF COMMON MAN OF INDIAN IN THE GOVERNANCE OF

THE COUNTRY IS VERY NEGLIGIBLE . THEIR PARTICIPATION IS LIMITED TO VOTING IN

ELECTION ONLY. THE ECONOMIC AS WELL AS POLITICAL POWER IS CONCENTRATED ONLY IN

FEW HANDS . THESE POWERFUL PEOPLES ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT

OF NATION THEY ARE JUST BOTHERED ABOUT THE TURNOVER OF THEIR BUSINESS . LONG-
TERM MEASURES HAVE TO BE TAKEN ON A LARGE SCALE TO ERADICATE POVERTY . FARMERS

HAVE TO BE HELPED IN EVERY ASPECT. JOB OPPORTUNITIES HAVE TO BE IMPROVED. SELF

EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES HAVE TO BE  STARTED IN GOOD NUMBER . THE UNEDUCATED

VILLAGERS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO FAIL INTO THE CLUTCHES OF MONEY LENDERS.

ABOVE ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BE SO EDUCATED THAT THEY REALIZE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEM.
ONLY THEN POVERTY DISAPPEARS. THE TRUE AND PROPER SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF

POVERTY LIES IN JUDICIOUS AND FAIR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY . THE PRIME

FACTOR TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE GOVERNMENTS ARE TO ENFORCE THE

LAWS WITH FULL FORCE , OUR CONSTITUTION IS THE SOLE ONE DOCUMENT WHICH MAKES A

DIFFERENCE , IF, PROPERLY ENFORCED. IT IS NOT THE SYSTEM WHICH WE HAVE TO BLAME ,

BUT THE REAL PROBLEM LIES WITH ITS ENFORCEMENT . OUR CONTITUTION WITH ITS

PROVISIONS ALWAYS TRY TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF EQUALITY . DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF

STATE POLICY DEALT WITH THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE WHICH ENCOURAGE THE LAW -

MAKERS TO DO JUSTICE AMONG THE PEOPLE.

CONCEPT & DEFINITIONS OF POVERTY

PEOPLE WHO FAIL TO REACH A CERTAIN MINIMUM LEVEL OF CONSUMPTION STANDARD ARE

GENERALLY REGARDED AS POOR . DEFINING POVERTY HAS BEEN AN ONGOING ENDEAVOUR .

THE DEFINITIONS HAVE ALTERED BUT SLIGHTLY , IN THEIR INTENT, OBJECTIVE AND OUTCOME,
ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT HAVE CHANGED IN THEIR MANIFESTATION . FROM ADAM SMITH TO

AMARTYA SEN, ALL THEORETICIANS ARE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR OPINION THAT POVERTY IS

A GENUINE DEPRIVATION OF LIFE ’S BASIC NECESSITIES AND INCAPACITY TO MEET MINIMUM

BIOLOGICAL , SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL NEEDS. THE PERCEPTION OF BASIC NECESSITIES ,

HOWEVER, VARIES; WHAT SOME SOCIETIES CONSIDER AS NECESSITIES MAY PERHAPS BE

REGARDED AS EXTRAVAGANCE OR OPULENCE IN OTHERS . MOREOVER, WITHIN THE SAME

SOCIETY , WHEN SUB -GROUPS BECOME USED TO A CERTAIN STANDARD OF LIVING, THAT

LEVEL OF EXISTENCE BECOMES A NECESSITY , LEADING TO THE PROPENSITY OF A MEASURED

BUT STEADY ASCENT IN THE BENCHMARK LEVEL OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED AS ‘BASIC

NECESSITIES ’.

OPPENHEIM SAYS , “POVERTY MEANS GOING SHORT MATERIALLY , SOCIALLY AND

EMOTIONALLY . IT MEANS SPENDING LESS ON FOOD, ON HEATING AND ON CLOTHING THAN

SOMEONE ON THE AVERAGE INCOME…ABOVE ALL, POVERTY TAKES AWAY THE TOOLS TO

BUILD THE BLOCKS FOR THE FUTURE , YOUR ‘LIFE CHANCES’. IT SEALS AWAY THE

OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A LIFE UNMARKED BY SICKNESS , A DECENT EDUCATION , A SECURE

HOME AND A LONG RETIREMENT .”

ACCORDING TO GOODARD , “POVERTY IS INSUFFICIENT SUPPLY OF THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE

REQUISITE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO MAINTAIN HIMSELF AND THOSE WHO DEPEND UPON HIM

IN HEALTH AND VIGOUR .”

ACCORDING TO GILLIN AND GILLIN , “POVERTY IS THAT CONDITION IN WHICH A PERSON ,

EITHER BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE INCOME OR UNWISE EXPENDITURES, DOES NOT MAINTAIN

A SCALE OF LIVING HIGH ENOUGH TO PROVIDE FOR HIS PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EFFICIENCY

AND TO ENABLE HIM AND HIS NATURAL DEPENDENTS TO FUNCTION USEFULLY ACCORDING

TO THE STANDARDS OF SOCIETY OF WHICH HE IS A MEMBER.”

ACCORDING TO ADAM SMITH , “MAN IS RICH OR POOR ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE IN

WHICH HE CAN AFFORD TO ENJOY THE NECESSARIES , THE CONVENIENCES AND THE

AMUSEMENTS OF LIFE .”

POVERTY IN INDIA HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THAT SITUATION IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL FAILS

TO EARN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO BUY HIM BARE MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE . POVERTY IN

INDIAN CONTEXT IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF BOTH ‘MINIMUM NEEDS’ AND ‘ABILITY ’ TO

SATISFY THE WANTS . ABILITY TO SATISFY NEEDS IS MEASURED IN TERMS OF CRITICAL LEVEL

OF MONEY INCOME REGARDLESS OF LIVING CONDITIONS. PROF. UPENDRA BAXI PREFERRED

TO SUBSTITUTE THE WORD ‘POVERTY ’ WITH ‘IMPOVERISHMENT ’ AND THE WORD ‘POOR ’

WITH THE WORD ‘IMPOVERISHED ’ BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT NATURALLY POOR BUT ARE

MADE POOR , THAT IMPOVERISHMENT IS A DYNAMIC PROCESS OF PUBLIC DECISION -MAKING

IN WHICH IT IS CONSIDERED JUST, RIGHT AND FAIR THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY BECOME OR

STAY IMPOVERISHED . HE FURTHER SAYS, “IMPOVERISHMENT OF PEOPLE IS A MATTER OF

CONSCIOUS PLANNING BY THOSE WHO ARE NOT IMPOVERISHED . BOTH STATE POLICIES AND

OUR INNUMERABLE DAILY ACTIONS DECIDE WHO, HOW MANY, TO WHAT EXTENT, FOR HOW

LONG AND WITH WHAT COST SHALL BECOME OR REMAIN IMPOVERISHED . BOTH THE STATE
AND SOCIETY ARE EQUAL PARTNERS IN INDIA IN GENERATING THE STRATA OR UNDER -CLASS

OF THE IMPOVERISHED .”

CONSTITUTIONAL ESPOUSAL AND ERADICATION OF POVERTY

THOUGH ‘POVERTY’ AS A TERM HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION ,
THE PREAMBLE, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE
POLICY STAND TESTIMONY TO THE WELFARE STATE MODEL. THE JUDICIARY HAS STATED IN

BASHESHAR NATH V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 1, THAT “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 …ANY PERSON …CAN CHALLENGE THE

DEPRIVATION AS OFFENDING THE RIGHT TO LIFE CONFERRED BY ART 21.” THEN AGAIN, IT

HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED IN OLGA TELLIS V. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 2, THAT “THE
COUNTRY HAD SO FAR NOT FOUND IT FEASIBLE TO INCORPORATE THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD

AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT HAD SO FAR NOT ATTAINED

THE CAPACITY TO GUARANTEE IT, AND NOT BECAUSE IT CONSIDERED IT ANY THE LESS

FUNDAMENTAL TO LIFE . ADVISEDLY, THEREFORE , IT HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE CHAPTER ON

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES, UNDER ART. 41, WHICH ENJOINS UPON THE STATE TO MAKE

EFFECTIVE PROVISION FOR SECURING THE SAME “WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS ECONOMIC

CAPACITY AND DEVELOPMENT ”. THUS EVEN WHILE GIVING DIRECTION TO THE STATE TO

ENSURE THE RIGHT TO WORK, THE CONSTITUTION MAKERS THOUGHT IT PRUDENT NOT TO
1
Air 1959 sc 149
2
Air 1986 sc 180
DO SO WITHOUT QUALIFYING IT. THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION CAME INTO FORCE ON 26TH
JANUARY, 1950. IT IS THE PRODUCT OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT, A STRUGGLE

AGAINST THE COLONIAL RULE OF BRITAIN. DURING THE COURSE OF THIS STRUGGLE PEOPLE

FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE PARTICIPATED , BRINGING THEIR DIVERSE EXPERIENCES ,

KNOWLEDGE , PHILOSOPHIES AND VALUES TO THE MOVEMENT. IT WAS MANY OF THESE

PEOPLE WHO WENT ON TO BECOME THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY THAT

DRAFTED THIS CONSTITUTION . WE CAN SEE A REFLECTION OF THESE DIVERSE INTERESTS IN

EVERY PART OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION . TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF COLONIAL RULE HAD

WROUGHT HAVOC ON THE ECONOMY OF THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT LEADING TO THE

IMPOVERISHMENT OF A LARGE SECTION OF ITS POPULATION . EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF

THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT THE STRUGGLES OF THE PEASANTS AND THE WORKING

CLASS AND THEREFORE THE QUESTIONS OF POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT HAD OFTEN COME

TO THE FORE IN THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE VARIOUS GROUPS THAT STRUGGLED FOR

INDEPENDENCE FROM BRITISH RULE—INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, THE CONGRESS

SOCIALIST PARTY, THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA, THE HINDUSTAN SOCIALIST
REPUBLICAN ARMY, THE INDIAN NATIONAL ARMY ETC. IT IS THUS NO SURPRISE THAT THESE
QUESTIONS TROUBLED THE CONSTITUTION MAKERS AND THEREFORE FOUND THEIR WAY

INTO THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL. THESE SAME CONCERNS CONTINUED TO BE THE FOCUS OF
THE LEGISLATORS AND THE JUDICIARY AFTER INDEPENDENCE TOO. THUS THE SUPREME
COURT IN ITS ROLE AS INTERPRETEROF THE CONSTITUTION DEBATED ON THESE ISSUES IN

THE MATTERS THAT CAME BEFORE IT AND THROUGH JUDICIOUS USE OF THE PROVISIONS OF

THE CONSTITUTION , PARTICULARLY PART IV, VIZ., THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE
POLICY4 AND ART. 21 OF PART III, 5 HAVE IN SEVERAL OF ITS DECISIONS DISCUSSED

HEREAFTER ADDRESSED THE QUESTION OF POVERTY .

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS REFLECTED VIA TWO MODES : FIRSTLY ,

LEGISLATIONS REFLECTING THE BROADER AND COMPREHENSIVE PERSPECTIVE , AND

SECONDLY , DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PLANS, SHOWCASING THE TAILOR -MADE OPTION .

LEGISLATIONS FOR ERADICATION OF POVERTY

LEGISLATIONS HAVE BEEN FORMULATED WITH THE POOR AS A FOCAL POINT FOR SEVERAL

DECADES NOW ; IN FACT THE AGENDA OF THE 15TH LAW COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY STATED
THAT ITS TERMS OF REFERENCE WERE LAW AND POVERTY WHICH ENTAILED : FIRSTLY ,

EXAMINING THE LAWS WHICH AFFECT THE POOR AND CARRYING OUT POST-AUDIT FOR

SOCIOECONOMIC LEGISLATION AND SECONDLY , TO TAKE ALL SUCH MEASURES AS MAY BE

NECESSARY TO HARNESS LAW AND THE LEGAL PROCESS IN THE SERVICE OF THE POOR. THE
MOST PROMINENT OF PRO -POOR LEGISLATIONS IS THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT,
1987 THAT GIVES STATUTORY EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 39A OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND AIMS AT PROVIDING FREE AND COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL

SERVICES TO THE INDIGENT SECTIONS OF THE POPULATION . ADDITIONALLY , ALMOST ALL

LEGISLATIONS OPERATING IN ANY FIELD WHATSOEVER , WHETHER IT BE LABOUR LAWS, CIVIL

LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, ARE BOUND TO HAVE CERTAIN PROVISIONS DEALING WITH INDIGENT

ISSUES .

FUNDAMENTALLY , IT IS THROUGH THE SOCIAL LAWS THAT A DIRECT IMPACT IS ENSURED ON

POVERTY -RELATED ISSUES. SEVERAL LEGAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH ISSUES OF CASTE

STATUS , LAND REFORMS , CHILD LABOUR AND GENDER EQUALITY ARE IN EXISTENCE.

RELATIVELY RECENTLY , THE NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE ACT, 2005 WAS

PASSED PROVIDING SPECIFIC GUARANTEED WAGE EMPLOYMENT EVERY YEAR TO

HOUSEHOLDS WHOSE ADULT MEMBERS VOLUNTEER TO DO UNSKILLED MANUAL WORK.

ALSO, THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS (RECOGNITION
OF FOREST RIGHTS) ACT, 2006 WAS PASSED AIMED AT ENSURING SECURITY OF TENURE
AND ACCESS TO MINOR FOREST PRODUCE AND OTHER RELATED RIGHTS FOR TRIBALS AND

OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS. FURTHER LEGISLATIONS WITH DIRECT EMPHASIS ON

POVERTY ARE ON THE ANVIL; THE FOREMOST BEING, THE NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY
LEGISLATION , PROVIDING FOR SUBSIDIZED FOOD-GRAINS TO THE POOR.

DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES FOR ERADICATION OF POVERTY

LACK OF EMPLOYMENT IS ONE OF THE CAUSES OF POVERTY IN INDIA. ONE OF THE PRINCIPLE

OBJECTIVES OF ECONOMIC PLANNING IN INDIA IS THE EXPANSION OF EMPLOYMENT TO

ALLEVIATE POVERTY . LET US SEE HOW THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY DUE TO UNEMPLOYMENT

IN INDIA HAS BEEN TACKLED IN THE SUCCESSIVE FIVE YEAR PLANS BY PROVIDING

EMPLOYMENT UNDER DIFFERENT PROGRAMMES.

THE RURAL WORK PROGRAMME (RWP)

THE RURAL WORK PROGRAMME (RWP ) WAS INTENDED TO UTILISE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT

THE MANPOWER RESOURSES OF THE COUNTRY AND TO ENSURE A SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION

IN EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES . THE EMPHASIS UNDER THE PROGRAMME WAS ON THE

CONSTRUCTION OF CIVIL WORKS OF A PERMANENT NATURE AS WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE

MITIGATION, IF NOT THE TOTAL ERADICATION, OF THE SCARCITY CONDITIONS IN THE AREAS

CONCERNED .

FOOD-FOR-WORK SCHEME

A NOVEL ANTI -POVERTY SCHEME CALLED FOOD -FOR-WORK SCHEME INTENDED TO BENEFIT

FOR RURAL POOR, ESPECIALLY THE LANDLESS AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS, WAS INITIATED IN

APRIL, 1977. THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS SCHEME WERE:-

(1) TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT , FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, IN THE

RURAL AREA ;
(2) TO CREATE DURABLE COMMUNITY ASSETS AND STRENGTHEN THE SOCIAL

INFRASTRUCTURE IN ORDER TO INCREASE PRODUCTION AND RAISE LIVING STANDARDS IN

THE RURAL AREA; AND

(3) TO UTILISE SURPLUS FOOD GRAINS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTRY ’S HUMAN

RESOURCES.

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WOULD MAKE ALLOCATION IN THE FORM OF FOODGRAINS TO

THE STATE GOVERNMENTS TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR RESOURCES FOR THE ONGOING PLAN

PROJECTS OR SOME SPECIFIC PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT .

PANCHAYAT RAJ INSTITUTIONS WERE AUTHORISED TO IMPLEMENT THE SCHEME . UNDER THIS

SCHEME, THE PAYMENT OF A PART OF THE WAGES OF WORK ENGAGED IN RURAL WORKS IS

MADE IN FOODGRAINS. THE AGRICULTURAL UNEMPLOYED ARE PROVIDED OFF-SEASON

EMPLOYMENT AS WELL AS TWO SQUARE MEALS A DAY.

ANTYODAYA PROGRAMME

A NOVEL METHOD CALLED ANTYODAYA WAS ADOPTED BY SEVERAL STATE GOVERNMENTS TO

AMELIORATE THE LOT OF THE RURAL POOR , ESPECIALLY THE POOR LANDLESS AGRICULTURAL

LABOURERS WHO WERE UNDER THE POVERTY LINE . UNDER THIS PROGRAMME, FIVE

POOREST FAMILIES ARE IDENTIFIED IN EACH VILLAGE AND THEY ARE ALLOTED LAND AND

IMPLEMENTS , HOUSE SITES AND FINANCIAL AID FOR SUBSIDIARY OCCUPATIONS LIKE ANIMAL

HUSBANDARY , DAIRYING, HANDICRAFTS , RURAL INDUSTRIES, KHADI ETC. SOME OF THEM

ARE ABSORBED IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND THE OLD AND INVALID AMONG THEM ARE

GIVEN OLD -AGE AND DISABILITY PENSIONS . IN THIS WAY, THE IDENTIFIED FAMILIES ARE

ENABLED TO RISE ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE AND TO BECOME SELF-RELIANT.

EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (EGS )

THE MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED THE EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME

(EGS) IN 1972-73 WITH THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES:

(1) TO PROVIDE GAINFUL AND PRODUCTIVE EMPLOYMENT TO AN INDIVIDUAL IN APPROVED
RURAL WORKS WHICH RAISE THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ECONOMY ;

(2) THE WORKS UNDERTAKEN SHOULD PRODUCE DURABLE COMMUNITY ASSETS IN THE AREA;
(3) PRODUCTIVE WORKS OF LABOUR-INTENSIVE NATURE LIKE MINOR IRRIGATION , WATER
AND SOIL CONSERVATION , NALLA BUNDING, CANAL EXCAVATION, LAND DEVELOPMENT ,

AFFORESTATION , ETC. SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN .

UNDER THE SCHEME, THE GUARANTEE OF WORK WAS RESTRICTED TO UNSKILLED MANUAL

WORK ONLY, THE GUARANTEE EXTENDED ONLY TO ABLE BODIED ADULTS (MEN AND WOMEN

OVER 18 YEARS); THE PARTICIPANTS HAD NO CHOICE OF WORK BUT HAD TO ACCEPT SUCH

WORK AS WAS OFFERED TO THEM; THEY HAD NO CHOICE OF THE AREAS OF THE WORK. THE

SCHEME WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE MUNICIPAL AREAS. THE SCHEME WAS PARTICULARLY

DESIGNED TO HELP THE ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS OF RURAL SOCIETY .

INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (IRDP)

THE INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME ( IRDP ) WAS INITIATED ON OCTOBER 2,

1980. THE INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AIMS AT ALL ROUND

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ‘TARGET GROUP’ TO LIFT IT ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE.

THE INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AIMS AT:

(1) FULL UTILIZATION OF LABOUR AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES, CREATION OF AGRO -

INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX FOR GENERATING EMPLOYMENT IN RURAL AREAS;

(2) DEVELOPMENT OF THE GRASSROOTS ‘MAN’, THE COMMON MAN;

(3) HELPING THE BOTTOM ‘MAN’ BELOW THE POVERTY LINE TO BECOME SELF-RELIANT.
THE INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME HAS BROUGHT UNDER ONE UMBRELLA

THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMMES OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT :

(1) RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (RDP);

(2) SMALL FARMERS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SFDA);

(3) DROUGHT PRONE AREA PROGRAMME (DPAP);
(4) OPERATION FLOOD PROGRAMME (OFP);
(5) NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME (NREP);
(6) MINIMUM NEEDS PROGRAMME (MNP);
(7) MARGINAL FARMERS AND AGRICULTURAL LABOR PROGRAMME (MFALP);
(8) FOOD-FOR-WORK PROGRAMME (FWP); AND
(9) SPECIAL LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (SLDP).
THE TARGET GROUP OF THE INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME CONSISTS OF

THE POOREST AMONG THE POOR IN THE RURAL AREAS , NAMELY, SCHEDULED CASTES ,

SCHEDULED TRIBES , AGRICULTURAL AND NON-AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS , RURAL ARTISANS,

MARGINAL AND SMALL FARMERS AND THOSE WHO ARE LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LINE .

THUS, GOVERNMENT THROUGH PLANNING TRIES TO ERADICATE THE POVERTY FROM THE

GRASSROOT LEVEL. BUT, UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE FAR FROM GROUND REALITIES, IN, A

RECENT REPORT IT IS PUBLISHED THAT SOME PLACES IN INDIA THE CONDITION OF PEOPLE

ARE MUCH MORE DEGRADED THAN THAT OF AFRICAN NATIONS . SO , WE MUST FOCUS ON

THE PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICIES, THEN, ONLY WE GROW AS A STRONG

NATION .
DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES AND GOOD GOVERNANCE FOR

ERADICATION OF POVERTY

PART IV OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS COMPRISED OF WHAT IS CALLED DIRECTIVE

PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR SAID THAT “WHAT IS CALLED

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES IS MERELY ANOTHER NAME FOR INSTRUMENT OF INSTRUCTIONS. THE

ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THEY ARE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE

EXECUTIVE.” IN FACT, ART. 37 (“APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN THIS

PART”) STATES , “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. HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT IN

AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION V. UNITED LABOUR UNION3 ELEVATED THEM TO

3
AIR 1997 SC 645
HUMAN RIGHTS, DESCRIBING THEM AS FORERUNNERS OF THE U.N. CONVENTION ON RIGHT
TO DEVELOPMENT AS AN INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS FURTHER

STATED IN SEVERAL OTHER DECISIONS THAT THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES SUPPLEMENT THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THAT PARLIAMENT CAN AMEND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FOR

IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES. IN CHANDRA BHAVAN V. STATE OF MYSORE 4,

THE ALL MYSORE HOTELS ASSOCIATION FILED A WRIT PETITION UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

INDIAN CONSTITUTION STATING THAT THEIR RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART. 14) AND THE RIGHT

TO FREEDOM OF TRADE [ART. 19 (1) (G)] WERE VIOLATED BY THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE IN 1967, FIXING THE MINIMUM WAGE OF DIFFERENT

CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES IN RESIDENTIAL HOTELS AND EATING HOUSES IN THE STATE OF

MYSORE UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT OF 1948. THE HIGH COURT OF MYSORE HAD
REJECTED ALL THEIR CONTENTIONS AND THEREFORE , THIS WRIT PETITION . THE SUPREME
COURT IN RESPONSE STATED THAT ART 43 OF THE CONSTITUTION , WHICH IS IN PART IV,
DPSP, STATES “THE STATE SHALL ENDEAVOUR TO SECURE BY SUITABLE LEGISLATION OR

ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION OR IN ANY OTHER WAY, TO ALL WORKERS, ENSURING A DECENT

STANDARD OF LIFE AND FULL AGRICULTURAL , INDUSTRIAL OR OTHERWISE, WORK, A LIVING

WAGE , CONDITIONS OF WORK ENJOYMENT OF LEISURE AND SOCIAL AND CULTURAL

OPPORTUNITIES.” THE COURT SAID THAT THE FIXING OF MINIMUM WAGE IS JUST THE FIRST
STEP IN THAT DIRECTION . IT ALSO WENT TO STATE THAT “FREEDOM OF TRADE DOES NOT

MEAN FREEDOM TO EXPLOIT. THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT ERECTED AS

BARRIERS TO PROGRESS. THEY PROVIDE A PLAN FOR ORDERLY PROGRESS TOWARDS THE

SOCIAL ORDER CONTEMPLATED BY THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION .’’ “WHILE RIGHTS

CONFERRED UNDER PART III ARE FUNDAMENTAL , THE DIRECTIVES GIVEN UNDER PART IV
ARE FUNDAMENTAL IN THE GOVERNANCE OF THE COUNTRY . WE SEE NO CONFLICT ON THE

4
AIR 1970 SC 2042
WHOLE , BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN PART III AND PART IV. THEY ARE

COMPLIMENTARY AND SUPPLEMENTARY TO EACH OTHER .” “THE MANDATE OF THE

CONSTITUTION IS TO BUILD A WELFARE SOCIETY IN WHICH JUSTICE SOCIAL, ECONOMICAL

AND POLITICAL SHALL INFORM ALL INSTITUTIONS OF OUR NATIONAL LIFE .” IN STATE OF

KERALA V. N.M. THOMAS5, THE RESPONDENT , N.M. THOMAS, CONTENDED THAT THE

RULES MADE BY THE STATE OF KERALA PROVIDING AN EXEMPTION TO MEMBERS OF THE

SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE COMMUNITIES (SC & ST) FROM PASSING THE

REQUIRED TESTS IN ORDER TO AVAIL OF PROMOTION IN THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE

COMMISSION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WANTED THE SUPREME COURT TO ISSUE A

MANDAMUS COMPELLING THE STATE TO FORBEAR FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE PROMOTION

ORDERS FOR THE THIRTY FOUR MEMBER OF THE SC AND ST COMMUNITIES . HE CLAIMED

THAT ARTICLES 16(1) AND 16(2) WERE VIOLATED AND THAT EXEMPTION FROM THE

QUALIFYING EXAM NECESSARY FOR PROMOTION WAS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE

MAINTENANCE OF EFFICIENCY IN ADMINISTRATION . THE STATE OF KERALA, ON THE OTHER

HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED RULES AND ORDERS WERE NOT ONLY LEGAL BUT

SUPPORT A RATIONAL CLASSIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 16(1) IN ARRIVING AT THE FINAL

DECISION , WHEREIN THE COURT UPHELD THE APPEAL, THE COURT OBSERVED, “TODAY, THE

POLITICAL THEORY WHICH ACKNOWLEDGES THE OBLIGATION OF GOVERNMENT UNDER PART

IV OF THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE JOBS , MEDICAL CARE , OLD AGE PENSION, ETC.,

EXTENDS TO HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMPOSES AN AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION TO PROMOTE

EQUALITY AND LIBERTY . THE FORCE OF THE IDEA OF A STATE WITH OBLIGATION TO HELP THE

WEAKER SECTIONS OF ITS MEMBERS SEEMS TO HAVE INCREASING INFLUENCE IN

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. . . . TODAY, THE SENSE THAT GOVERNMENT HAS AFFIRMATIVE

RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELIMINATION OF INEQUALITIES , SOCIAL, ECONOMIC OR OTHERWISE , IS

5
Air 1976 sc 490
ONE OF THE DOMINANT FORCES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW .” ANOTHER JUDGE OF THE SAME

BENCH OBSERVED , “IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES ADUMBRATED BY THIS COURT IT IS CLEAR

THAT THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES FORM THE FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE AND THE SOCIAL

CONSCIENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION ENJOINS UPON THE STATE TO

IMPLEMENT THESE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES . THE DIRECTIVES THUS PROVIDE THE POLICY , THE

GUIDELINES AND THE END OF SOCIO -ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND ARTICLES 14 AND 16 ARE

THE MEANS TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICY TO ACHIEVE THE ENDS SOUGHT TO BE PROMOTED BY

THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES . SO FAR AS THE COURTS ARE CONCERNED WHERE THERE IS NO

APPARENT INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN PART IV AND

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED IN PART III, WHICH IN FACT SUPPLEMENT EACH

OTHER, THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY IN PUTTING A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION WHICH

ADVANCES THE OBJECT OF THE CONSTITUTION . ONCE THIS BASIC FACT IS KEPT IN MIND, THE
INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 AND THEIR SCOPE AND AMBIT BECOME AS CLEAR

AS DAY.” IN THIS CASE IT WAS ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT GUIDED THE BASIS

ON WHICH THE RULES FOR PROMOTION OF THE SC AND ST COMMUNITIES HAD BEEN

FRAMED . FURTHER IN LINGAPPA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 6 THE CONSTITUTIONAL

VALIDITY OF SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE MAHARASHTRA RESTORATION OF LANDS TO

SCHEDULED TRIBES ACT, 1974 WAS BEING CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT . THE QUESTION
WAS WHETHER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ACT WHICH PROVIDED FOR

ANNULMENT OF TRANSFERS MADE BY MEMBERS OF SCHEDULED TRIBES AND FOR

RESTORATION OF LANDS TO THEM ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS WERE ULTRAVIRES THE STATE

LEGISLATURE AS BEING BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF ENTRY 18 OF LIST II OF THE SEVENTH
SCHEDULE OR WERE OTHERWISE VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, ARTICLE 19 (1) (F) 20 AND

ARTICLE 31 OF THE CONSTITUTION . THE COURT HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED ACT WAS ONLY

6
Air 1995 sc 389
A REMEDIAL MEASURE IN KEEPING WITH THE POLICY OF THE STATE TO BRING ABOUT SOCIAL

AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOR THE SCHEDULED TRIBES IN LIGHT OF THE ATTEMPTS BY MORE

DEVELOPED SECTIONS OF SOCIETY TO DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR LAND . THEY WENT ON TO SAY

THAT “THE LEGISLATION IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE .” ONCE

AGAIN IT WAS THE READING OF ARTICLE 46 WITH ARTICLES 14 AND 15. IT IS CLEAR FROM

THE THREE CASES DISCUSSED ABOVE THAT THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS THE DIRECTIVE
PRINCIPLES AS INTEGRAL TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JUST AND FAIR SOCIETY IN EVERY

SENSE OF THOSE WORDS. THAT THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES WERE SEEN AS THE MEANS TO

ADDRESS THE ISSUES RELATING TO POVERTY IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM WHAT DR. AMBEDKAR
SAID, “OUR OBJECT IN FRAMING THIS CONSTITUTION IS REALLY TWOFOLD: (I) TO LAY DOWN
THE FORM OF POLITICAL DEMOCRACY , AND (II) TO LAY DOWN THAT OUR IDEAL IS ECONOMIC

DEMOCRACY AND ALSO TO PRESCRIBE THAT EVERY GOVERNMENT WHATEVER, IT IS IN

POWER, SHALL STRIVE TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY ,” THUS, IT IS ABUNDANTLY

CLEAR , THAT THE MAKERS AND DRAFTERS OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION WERE NOT

CONTENT WITH CREATING A SOCIETY POLITICALLY FREE BUT ALSO AIMED AT CREATING ONE

IN WHICH ALL THE PEOPLE WOULD BE FREE FROM ECONOMIC DISTRESS AND ALL THE

CITIZENS WOULD HAVE EQUAL, NOT ONLY OPPORTUNITIES , BUT ACCESS TO ALL ECONOMIC

RESOURCES. FREEDOM NOT ONLY FROM POLITICAL SUBORDINATION BUT ALSO FROM

ECONOMIC WANTS . A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF A FEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

MIGHT DEMONSTRATE HOW THESE OBJECTIVES WERE SOUGHT TO BE MET.

 JUDICIAL CHECKS AND BALANCES

THE JUDICIARY HAS BY DEFAULT BEEN CHARGED WITH THE UNENVIABLE TASK OF KEEPING

TABS ON BOTH THE LEGISLATURE AND THE EXECUTIVE AS REGARDS THE POVERTY

ALLEVIATION AGENDA . FURTHERMORE, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE THE

JUDICIARY HAS BEEN FORCED TO TAKE OVER THE MANTLE OF THE OTHER TWO POWERS AND

PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS . A KEY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN WHERE THE

JUDICIARY ADOPTED AN EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION OF ART. 21, BRINGING WITHIN ITS

AMBIT ALMOST ALL FACETS OF POVERTY . THE JUDICIARY HAS RENDERED JUDGMENTS

FOCUSING ON POVERTY IN ITS VARIOUS FACETS , SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO FOOD , CHILD

LABOUR , BEGGARS ’ RIGHTS , DEBT-RIDDEN FARMER SUICIDES , THE HOMELESS, STREET

VENDORS , CYCLE RICKSHAW PLIERS , PAVEMENT DWELLERS , SLUM DWELLERS AND

ASCERTAINMENT OF BELOW POVERTY LINE FAMILIES. BUT, JUDICIARY ALSO HAVE CERTAIN

RESTRICTIONS , IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY ENTER INTO THE FIELD ASSIGNED TO THE LEGISLATURE

AND EXECUTIVE . LASTLY, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE JUDICIARY TO BE A UNIVERSAL

WATCHDOG. A COMPLEMENTING PUBLIC INITIATIVE IS A NECESSARY REQUISITE . WHILE

CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING THERE IS ALWAYS SCOPE FOR

MORE .

CONCLUSION
IT IS NOW A RECOGNIZED FACT, THAT POVERTY IS A MULTI -FACETED PHENOMENON GOING

BEYOND THE REALMS OF LACK OF ADEQUATE INCOME ; IT MUST BE VIEWED AS A STATE OF

DEPRIVATION SPANNING THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL PROFILE OF THE PEOPLE

THAT PRECLUDES THEIR EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION AS EQUALS IN THE DEVELOPMENT

PROCESS . THE ERADICATION OF POVERTY REQUIRES UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO ECONOMIC

OPPORTUNITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD AND BASIC SOCIAL

SERVICES . THE BROAD ALLEVIATION EFFORTS INCLUDE PROVISION OF FOOD SECURITY , LAND

RIGHTS , EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SERVICES INCLUDING

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, SAFE

DRINKING WATER , AND SANITATION. UNLESS UNTIL, THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE POOR IS

IMPROVED , SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED IN STATE . THE GOAL IS NOT A

REALITY RATHER A MYTH. THIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE THROUGH PARTICIPATORY POVERTY

ALLEVIATION WHERE THE POOR HAVE TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES IN IDENTIFYING THE POOR ,

PRIORITISE THEIR NEEDS AND MONITOR POVERTY AT MICRO LEVEL. THE PARTICIPATORY

MICRO LEVEL POVERTY ALLEVIATION IS PROBABLY THE STEPPING STONE TOWARDS

ACHIEVING THE GOAL OF POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN THE STATE . QUALITY OF LIFE WHICH IS

THE BASIS FOR POVERTY PERSPECTIVE ENCOMPASSES BOTH RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE

POOR. LEGISLATION MAY HAVE TO BE TAKEN AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL IN ORDER TO ENSURE

THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS TO BE FULFILLED . THESE ARE RIGHTS TO LAND, COMMON

PROPERTY RESOURCES , WORK, FOOD , CREDIT, EDUCATION, HEALTH , SHELTER AND

SANITATION . THE PROVISION OF RIGHTS FOR THE GROWING MILLION OF POPULATION MAY

NOT BE REALISED AT THE INITIAL YEARS . THERE COMES THE BUNCH OF DUTIES WHERE

POPULATION CONTROL MAY HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS FAMILY RIGHT OR INDIVIDUAL

DUTY TO HAVE TWO CHILDREN FAMILY. THEREFORE , FAMILIES WITH TWO CHILDREN MAY BE
ENSURED OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE RIGHTS SO AS TO PAVE THE WAY FOR SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT WITH CONTROL OF POPULATION . IT MAY PROBABLY TAKE NOT LESS THAN 20
YEARS TO ERADICATE POVERTY FROM WEST BENGAL PROVIDED QUALITY OF LIFE RIGHTS ARE
ASSURED WITH FAMILY RIGHTS TO CONTROL BIRTH WITH PARTICIPATORY POVERTY

ALLEVIATION ADOPTED THROUGH MICRO PLAN CONCEPT.

 SYNOPSIS

TOPIC: - CONSTITUTIONAL PERCEPT FOR ERADICATION OF

POVERTY

1. INTRODUCTION
 2. CONCEPT & DEFINITIONS OF POVERTY

3. CONSTITUTIONAL ESPOUSAL AND ERADICATION OF POVERTY

(I)LEGISLATIONS FOR ERADICATION OF POVERTY

(II)DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES FOR ERADICATION OF POVERTY

4. DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES AND GOOD GOVERNANCE FOR

ERADICATION OF POVERTY

5. JUDICIAL CHECKS AND BALANCES

6. CONCLUSION

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

TOPIC: - CONSTITUTIONAL PERCEPT FOR

ERADICATION OF POVERTY

SUBJECT- POVERTY & LAW

UNDER THE KIND SUPERVISION OF: - DR. ZAFAR M.
NOUMANI

SUBMITTED BY: - SANDEEP

SINGH
ROLL NO.:- 10-LL.M-09
CLASS: - LL.M (II SEMESTER)
EN. NO.:- GA3330
FACULTY OF LAW, A.M.U.,
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. LAW, POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSAL LAW SERIES)

2. LAW & POVERTY (DR. S.R. MYNENI)
3. LAW, POVERTY & GOVERNANCE ( PROF. M.L. UPADHYAYA)
4. LAW, POVERTY & LEGAL AID (S. MURLIDHAR)