Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

Features of the Directive Principles of State Policy

1. Guiding Principles for Governance: The DPSPs serve as instructions to the State in legislative, executive, and administrative matters.
   • As per Article 36, the term ‘State’ includes the central and state governments, local authorities, and public authorities.
2. Inspired by the Government of India Act, 1935: DPSPs resemble the ‘Instrument of Instructions’ issued by the British Government to the Governor-General and Governors under the Government of India Act, 1935.
3. Ensuring Economic and Social Justice: These principles aim at establishing a welfare state that ensures justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity as outlined in the Preamble.
4. Non-Justiciable in Nature
   • DPSPs are not enforceable by courts if violated, as stated in Article 37.
   • However, it is the duty of the State to apply them in making laws.

Role in Constitutional Interpretation: Though not justiciable, the Supreme Court has ruled that DPSPs can be used to determine the reasonableness of laws under Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 19 (Six Freedoms).

List of Directive Principles of State Policy

Classification of DPSPs: Directive Principles are not classified in constitution as per their underlying philosophies. However, they can be classified into – socialistic, Gandhian and liberal-intellectual.

DPSP and Amendments:

DPSPs were made non-justiciable because of following reasons:

• Lack of Financial Resources: At the time of independence, India lacked sufficient resources to implement large-scale welfare policies.
• Diverse and Backward Conditions: Extreme poverty, illiteracy, and socio-cultural heterogeneity made uniform policy implementation impractical.
• Flexibility for the Government: To avoid overwhelming the newly independent State, DPSPs were made non-binding, allowing freedom in timing and method of implementation.
• Faith in Public Opinion: Framers believed that public pressure and political accountability would eventually lead governments to act upon these principles.

Relationship Between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs

1. Core of the Constitution: FRs and DPSPs together form the moral backbone of the Constitution, as per Justice Chandrachud. FRs protect individual freedoms from State overreach, while DPSPs drive the State toward a welfare society. Their synthesis, not isolation, defines India’s constitutional ethos.
2. Judicial Doctrine: The Supreme Court’s “Doctrine of Harmonious Construction” balances FRs and DPSPs to avoid conflict. It ensures both coexist, with FRs holding legal primacy but DPSPs guiding policy. This reflects their complementary roles in fostering inclusive democracy.
3. Initial Conflict: Early post-independence, FRs and DPSPs seemed at odds, with unclear precedence. The 1951 Champakam Dorairajan case marked the first clash, prioritizing FRs over DPSPs. This sparked a decades-long judicial and legislative evolution.

Key Judicial Pronouncement: 

• Champakam Dorairajan (1951): SC ruled FRs supreme, relegating DPSPs as subordinate per Article 37. DPSPs were non-justiciable, while FRs were sacrosanct and amendable.
• Golaknath (1967): SC elevated FRs to a “transcendental” status, barring amendments that curtailed them. It introduced prospective overruling to refine past rulings.
• 24th Amendment (1971): Parliament countered Golaknath by adding Article 13(4), allowing FR amendments via constitutional acts. This tilted power toward legislative flexibility.
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): SC’s Basic Structure Doctrine limited amendments to FRs, protecting core constitutional features. It balanced FRs and DPSPs as interdependent.
• 42nd Amendment (1976): Gave DPSPs precedence over FRs, expanding Article 31C to shield all DPSP-implementing laws from FR challenges. Aimed to prioritize welfare goals.
• Minerva Mills (1980): SC restored equilibrium, striking down parts of the 42nd Amendment. Article 31C protection reverted to only Articles 39(b) and (c), emphasizing harmony over primacy.

 Current Status: FRs and DPSPs form an integrated framework, not rivals. FRs ensure legal rights, while DPSPs shape socio-economic justice. SC’s liberal interpretation (e.g., Article 21 expansions) integrates DPSPs like education and health into FRs, tested against the Basic Structure and Golden Triangle (Articles 14, 19, 21).

Differences Between FRs and DPSPs

• Philosophical Base: FRs stem from liberalism, safeguarding individual liberty against State action. DPSPs draw from diverse ideologies—welfare, socialism, Gandhism—focusing on collective progress.
• Nature: FRs impose restrictions on the State and sometimes private entities, protecting civil rights. DPSPs impose positive duties on the State to promote welfare through policy and governance.
• Enforceability: FRs are legally binding, backed by Article 32’s constitutional remedies, enforceable in courts. DPSPs, per Article 37, lack judicial enforceability, serving as guiding principles only.
• Outcome: FRs establish political democracy by securing individual freedoms and rights. DPSPs aim for socio-economic democracy, addressing group welfare and structural inequalities.
• Focus: FRs prioritize the individual as the unit of rights and protections. DPSPs target societal groups, aiming for broader equity and development.

Contemporary Angle:

• In 2021 Union of India v. Rajendra N Shah (97th Amendment partial strike-down) underscores State ratification issues in DPSP amendments.
• Judicial push for environmental DPSPs: Amid worsening climate crises (e.g., 2024 heatwaves, Delhi smog), the Supreme Court in 2023-24 rulings (e.g., MC Mehta v. Union of India revisited) expanded Article 21 to include the right to a clean environment, drawing from Article 48A (environmental protection).
• Ongoing Uniform Civil Code (Article 44) debates, post-2017 Triple Talaq ruling, highlight FR-DPSP tensions.
• Recently, Uttarakhand became the first state to enact a UCC in February 2024 (effective January 2025), mandating uniform laws on marriage, divorce, and inheritance (e.g., banning polygamy, setting a uniform marriage age). Excluding Scheduled Tribes.

Enforceability of DPSPs

• Non-Justiciable Nature: DPSPs, as per Article 37, cannot be enforced by courts; no judicial order can compel the government to implement them. Yet, they are deemed “fundamental in the governance of the country,” obligating the State to reflect them in legislation.
• Political Accountability: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar noted in the Constituent Assembly that neglecting DPSPs invites political consequences. A government ignoring them risks electoral backlash, giving the Opposition a tool to challenge its legitimacy.
• Union’s Role via Article 355: Article 355 mandates the Union to ensure States adhere to the Constitution, including Part IV. The Union could theoretically direct States to implement DPSPs (e.g., free education under Article 45), using Article 365 against non-compliant States, though this remains untested.

Criticisms of DPSPs

• No legal force: They were described as ‘pious superfluities’ and was compared to a blank cheque, new year’s resolutions, manifestation of aims and aspirations
• Illogically arranged: DPSP have been criticized for being arranged in an illogical manner and without any consistent philosophy
• Conservative and orthodox: Some provisions are outdated and are not consistent with 21^st century philosophies. Ex: Banning intoxicating drinks
• Might lead to confusion and conflicts
• Can cause conflicts between centre and states during implementation of DPSP
• Constitutional cases were high during the initial stages concerning the conflicts between FRs and DPSP.

Opinion of thinker’s on DPSPs

• Debate on Relevance: Critics like Sir Ivor Jennings labelled DPSPs as “pious aspirations,” questioning their place in a legal document. He saw them as a diluted Fabian socialism, lacking practical enforcement mechanisms.
• Prof. Wheare’s Critique: Wheare argued that including vague generalities risks undermining the Constitution’s credibility. He cautioned that judicial or legislative struggles over DPSPs could discredit governance institutions if taken too seriously or ignored as mere words.
• Justification for Inclusion: Defenders, like Sir B.N. Rau, viewed DPSPs as moral guidelines with educative value for the State. They signal a shift from laissez-faire to a welfare state, aiming for economic democracy (Ambedkar) and social justice (Panikkar), beyond just political equality.
• Granville Austin’s View: Austin saw DPSPs as tools for a social revolution, balancing individual liberty with collective good. They task future governments with finding a middle path to empower all citizens equally for the common welfare.

Achievements in Implementation

• Land Reforms (Article 39(b)): Post-independence, zamindari abolition and land ceiling laws redistributed agricultural resources, aligning with Article 39(b). Constitutional amendments (e.g., 1st, 4th) shielded these reforms from FR challenges, enhancing cultivators’ rights.
• Village Panchayats (Article 40): The 73rd and 74th Amendments empowered over 2.27 lakh Gram Panchayats with civic and judicial roles. Despite challenges like rural illiteracy, they advance self-governance as envisioned by Article 40.
• Cottage Industries (Article 43): Central boards (e.g., Khadi and Village Industries Board) support rural industries with finance and marketing aid. This fosters economic self-reliance in line with Article 43’s directive.
• Education (Article 45): Most States enacted compulsory primary education laws, bolstered by the 86th Amendment (2002) and RTE Act (2009). These steps partly fulfill Article 45’s original and revised goals.
• Rural Welfare (Article 47): Programs like the Community Development Project (1952) and IRDP (1978) uplifted rural living standards. The Food Security Act (2013) further supports nutrition goals under Article 47.
• Prohibition (Article 47): Partial prohibition exists in several States, spurred by the Planning Commission’s efforts. However, financial constraints and cultural resistance limit full implementation.
• Judicial Separation (Article 50): The CrPC 1973 separated judicial and executive functions, placing trials under judicial magistrates. This fulfills Article 50’s call for an independent judiciary uniformly across States.

Directives Outside Part IV

• Linguistic Education (Article 350A): States and local bodies must provide primary education in mother tongues for linguistic minorities. This non-justiciable directive promotes cultural inclusion.
• Hindi Promotion (Article 351): The Union is tasked with advancing Hindi as a unifying language while respecting India’s composite culture. It guides national language policy without court enforceability.
• SC/ST Representation (Article 335): The State must balance SC/ST claims in public appointments with administrative efficiency. Courts treat this directive similarly to Part IV, emphasizing constitutional harmony.