Directive Principles of State Policy are in the form of instructions/guidelines to the governments at the centre as well as states. They are enshrined in Part IV (Articles 36–51) of the Indian Constitution. These principles serve as guidelines for governance, aiming to establish social and economic democracy. They are inspired by the Irish Constitution (1937).
- Guide State Action: DPSPs mandate the State to foster a “Welfare State” over a “Police State,” integrating these principles into laws and administration. They aim to achieve the Preamble’s promise of economic and social democracy.
- Promote Welfare Ideals: They outline aspirational goals like equitable wealth and opportunity distribution. The aim is to realize the Preamble’s vision of a democratic, just society.
- Balance Rights and Duties: DPSPs complement Fundamental Rights by setting non-enforceable citizen benefits. They ensure the State prioritizes welfare alongside individual liberties.
Historical Evolution of DPSPs
- Pre-Independence Roots (1940s): Inspired by the Irish Constitution and socialist ideas from the freedom struggle.
- Karachi Session (1931): The Indian National Congress’s Karachi Session, chaired by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, adopted a resolution on Fundamental Rights and Economic Policy. It laid the groundwork for DPSPs by advocating socio-economic justice, including workers’ rights and state-led welfare, influencing the Constitution’s welfare vision.
- National Planning Committee (1938–1939): Formed under Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership, the National Planning Committee (NPC) outlined a socialist-leaning economic framework for independent India. It proposed state intervention in industry (e.g., steel production) and land reforms (e.g., abolishing zamindari), shaping DPSPs’ focus on equitable resource distribution.
- The 1945 Sapru Committee report influenced their inclusion in the Constitution.
- Constituent Assembly (1947–49): Framed in 1949, DPSPs reflected a compromise between socialism and liberalism. Leaders like Nehru envisioned a welfare-focused, non-ideological State.
- 42nd Amendment (1976): Added “Socialist” to the Preamble and new DPSPs (Art. 39A, 43A). Indira Gandhi’s era emphasized equal justice and workers’ participation, deepening the socialistic tilt.
- 44th Amendment (1978): Introduced Art. 38(2) to reduce income and status inequalities. Post-Emergency, it reinforced economic justice after scrapping the Right to Property.
- Later Amendments (2002, 2011): 86th Amendment (Art. 45) prioritized childhood education; 97th Amendment (Art. 43B) promoted cooperatives. The 2021 ruling partially struck down the latter for procedural lapses.
Note: The Sapru Committee (1945) classified rights into justiciable and non-justiciable, influencing the bifurcation between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and DPSPs (Part IV).
Features of the Directive Principles of State Policy
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Article | Description |
Article 36 | In this Part, unless specified otherwise, “the State” carries the same meaning as in Part III. Thus, it encompasses the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislatures of the States, and all local or other authorities within India or under the control of the Indian Government. |
Article 37 | The principles in this Part are not enforceable in courts, yet they are essential to the nation’s governance. The State is duty-bound to incorporate these principles into legislation and policy-making. |
Article 38 | (1) The State shall work to enhance public welfare by establishing and safeguarding a social order rooted in social, economic, and political justice across all national institutions. (2) The State shall specifically aim to reduce income disparities and eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities among individuals and groups across regions and occupations. |
Article 39 | The State shall focus its policies on ensuring: (a) equal livelihood rights for all citizens, regardless of gender; (b) community resources are distributed to benefit the collective good; (c) wealth and production means do not concentrate harmfully; (d) equal pay for equal work for men and women; (e) protection of workers’ and children’s health and strength from exploitation; (f) healthy development opportunities for children, free from neglect or abuse. |
Article 39A | The State shall ensure the legal system delivers justice equitably, providing free legal aid through laws or programs to prevent economic or other barriers from denying justice to citizens. |
Article 40 | The State shall organize village panchayats and grant them sufficient powers to function as self-governing units. |
Article 41 | Within its economic capacity, the State shall ensure the right to work, education, and public assistance for unemployment, old age, illness, disability, and other cases of genuine need. |
Article 42 | The State shall ensure just and humane working conditions and provide maternity relief. |
Article 43 | The State shall strive, through laws or economic measures, to secure work, a living wage, decent living conditions, and leisure opportunities for all workers, while promoting rural cottage industries individually or cooperatively. |
Article 43A | The State shall, through legislation or other means, ensure workers’ participation in managing industries and undertakings. |
Article 43B | The State shall promote the voluntary creation, independent operation, democratic control, and professional management of cooperative societies. |
Article 44 | The State shall work toward establishing a uniform civil code across India for all citizens. |
Article 45 | The State shall strive to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they reach six years of age. |
Article 46 | The State shall specially promote the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and weaker sections, protecting them from injustice and exploitation. |
Article 47 | The State shall prioritize raising nutrition levels, living standards, and public health, including prohibiting intoxicating drinks and harmful drugs except for medicinal use. |
Article 48 | The State shall modernize agriculture and animal husbandry scientifically, particularly by improving breeds and banning the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch/draught cattle. |
Article 48A | The State shall strive to protect and enhance the environment, forests, and wildlife of the country. |
Article 49 | The State shall protect monuments, places, and objects of national artistic or historic value, as declared by Parliament, from damage, destruction, or export. |
Article 50 | The State shall work to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services. |
Article 51 | The State shall strive to: (a) promote international peace and security; (b) maintain just and honourable inter-nation relations; (c) respect international law and treaties; (d) encourage arbitration for dispute resolution. |
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.
42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976 | Added four new DPSP
Article 39: To secure opportunities for healthy development of children Article 39A: To provide free legal aid to the poor. Article 43A: Participation of workers in management of Industries.K1M Article 48A: To protect and improve the environment. |
44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978 | Article 38: to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities |
86th Amendment Act of 2002 | changed the subject-matter and made elementary education a fundamental right under Article 21A. The amendment directed state to provide early childhood care until the completion of six years |
97th amendment act of 2011 | Article 43B: cooperative societies |
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
- The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is a legal principle used to interpret statutes and resolve conflicts between laws or different parts of the same law.
- When there’s inconsistency between statutes or provisions, the doctrine requires interpreting them in a way that harmonizes their application.
- This ensures that all provisions are given effect and the statute is understood as a whole.
- The principle assumes that Parliament intends for all provisions to work together without contradiction.
Supreme court laid down following principles for doctrine of Harmonious construction
- Avoid direct clashes by reconciling contradictory provisions harmoniously.
- Maximize effect to both provisions when full reconciliation isn’t possible.
- Reject interpretations that nullify any provision, preserving their purpose.
- Ensure harmony doesn’t dilute or destroy statutory intent.
- Seek justice-aligned readings, avoiding hardship or anomalies.
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.
- 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.
- 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 21st 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.
- 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.
- No ministry responsible to the people can afford light-heartedly to ignore the provisions in Part IV of the constitution’: Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar
- ‘A government which rests on popular vote can hardly ignore the DPSP while shaping its policy’
- ‘DPSP are life-giving provisions of the constitution’- LM Singhvi
- ‘DPSP are aimed at furthering the goals of the social revolution or to foster the revolution by establishing the conditions necessary for its achievements’- Granville Austin
‘DPSP are moral precepts for the authorities of the state’- Sir BN Rau
- Critically analyze whether the non enforceability of DPSPs make them subservient to Fundamental Rights?(250 words) (Insights secure)
- Part IV of the Indian Constitution has great value as it provides for social and economic democracy. In light of the above statement, discuss the importance and limitations of this part of the constitution.(250 words) (Insights secure)
- What are the Directive Principles of State Policy? Account for their classification while discussing their criticism. (250 words) (Insights secure)
- Discuss the possible factors that inhibit India from enacting for its citizens a uniform civil code as provided for in the Directive Principles of State Policy. (UPSC PYQ- 2015)