Directive Principles of State Policy

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) occupy Part IV of the Constitution, spanning Articles 36 to 51. Article 36 defines 'State' for the purpose of Part IV — identical in scope to the definition in Part III (Fundamental Rights) — covering the legislative and executive organs of both Union and state governments, all local authorities, and all other public authorities across India. Article 37 states that although the Directive Principles are non-justiciable, they are fundamental to the governance of the country and it is the duty of the State to apply them in making laws.

Origin: The framers drew inspiration from the Irish Constitution of 1937, which had itself adapted the concept from the Spanish Constitution. Dr B R Ambedkar regarded the Directive Principles as 'novel features' of the Indian Constitution. Granville Austin famously described both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles together as the 'Conscience of the Constitution', since they jointly embody its philosophical core.

---

1. Ideals for State Action: The DPSPs function as constitutional instructions or recommendations to the State regarding legislative, executive, and administrative conduct. They represent the ideals the State must keep in view while framing policies and enacting laws.

2. Resemblance to Instrument of Instructions: Dr Ambedkar noted that the DPSPs closely resemble the 'Instrument of Instructions' issued to the Governor-General and provincial Governors under the Government of India Act, 1935. The key distinction is that while those instruments were directed at executive heads, the DPSPs are addressed to the legislature and the executive alike.

3. Comprehensive Welfare Programme: Taken together, the DPSPs constitute a far-reaching economic, social, and political programme for a modern democratic State. They aspire to realise the values of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity proclaimed in the Preamble. They articulate the vision of a 'welfare state' — in sharp contrast to the 'police state' of the colonial era, which was preoccupied only with law and order and external defence.

4. Non-Justiciable Character: Unlike Fundamental Rights, DPSPs cannot be enforced through courts. No government — Union, state or local — can be legally compelled to implement them. However, this does not make them politically or morally irrelevant.

5. Aid to Judicial Review: Even though non-justiciable, DPSPs assist courts in assessing the constitutional validity of legislation. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that if a law seeks to give effect to a Directive Principle, courts may treat it as 'reasonable' under Article 14 (equality) or Article 19 (six freedoms), thereby saving it from being struck down.

---

The Constitution does not formally classify the DPSPs. However, based on content and underlying ideology, they are conventionally grouped into three categories:

1. Socialistic Principles

These reflect socialist ideology and aim at social and economic justice, forming the backbone of the welfare state vision.

• Article 38: State to promote social order marked by justice — social, economic, and political — and to minimise inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities. (The inequality-minimisation clause was added by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.)
• Article 39: Policy objectives including: adequate livelihood for all; equitable distribution of material resources for the common good; prevention of concentration of wealth; equal pay for equal work regardless of gender; protection of workers and children from exploitation; and healthy development of children. (Clause (f) on children modified by 42nd Amendment, 1976.)
• Article 39A: Equal justice and free legal aid for the poor. (Added by 42nd Amendment, 1976.)
• Article 41: Right to work, education, and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement.
• Article 42: Just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
• Article 43: Living wage, decent standard of life, and social and cultural opportunities for all workers. (Note: 'Living wage' goes beyond 'minimum wage' — the latter covers bare necessities like food, shelter, clothing; a living wage additionally includes education, health, and insurance. A 'fair wage' sits between the two.)
• Article 43A: Worker participation in management of industries. (Added by 42nd Amendment, 1976.)
• Article 47: State duty to raise nutrition levels, improve standards of living, and enhance public health.

2. Gandhian Principles

These principles embody Mahatma Gandhi's vision of a reconstructed, self-reliant Indian society, rooted in village republics, cottage industries, and social uplift.

• Article 40: Organise village panchayats and empower them to function as units of self-government.
• Article 43: Promote cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in rural areas.
• Article 43B: Promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control, and professional management of cooperative societies. (Added by 97th Amendment Act, 2011.)
• Article 46: Promote educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other weaker sections; protect them from social injustice and exploitation.
• Article 47: Prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs harmful to health.
• Article 48: Prohibit slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle; improve their breeds.

3. Liberal–Intellectual Principles

These reflect liberal constitutionalism and international commitments.

• Article 44: Secure a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens throughout the country.
• Article 45: Provide early childhood care and education for all children up to six years of age. (Originally it required free and compulsory education up to 14 years; changed by the 86th Amendment Act, 2002, after elementary education became a Fundamental Right under Article 21A.)
• Article 48: Organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines.
• Article 48A: Protect and improve the environment; safeguard forests and wildlife. (Added by 42nd Amendment, 1976.)
• Article 49: Protect monuments, places, and objects of artistic or historic importance declared to be of national importance.
• Article 50: Separate the judiciary from the executive in public services of the State.
• Article 51: Promote international peace and security; maintain just and honourable relations between nations; foster respect for international law and treaty obligations; encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

---

---

The idea of dividing individual rights into justiciable and non-justiciable categories was recommended by Sir B N Rau, the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly, and accepted by the Drafting Committee. This led to Part III (justiciable Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (non-justiciable DPSPs).

Though not court-enforceable, DPSPs carry two kinds of sanction:

• Moral obligation: Article 37 imposes a duty on the State to apply them.
• Political sanction: Public opinion is the real enforcement mechanism. As Alladi Krishna Swamy Ayyar observed, no government responsible to the people can afford to ignore Part IV casually. Dr Ambedkar reinforced this — any government ignoring DPSPs would be answerable to the electorate.

Why non-justiciable? The framers adopted a pragmatic approach, recognising:

1. Insufficient financial resources at the time of Independence.
2. Vast socio-economic diversity and backwardness.
3. The nascent state needed flexibility in deciding the order, timing, and mode of implementation — without risk of being paralysed by litigation.

---

1. No Legal Force: K T Shah called them 'pious superfluities' — likening them to 'a cheque on a bank, payable only when resources permit'. Nasiruddin compared them to 'new year's resolutions, broken on the second of January'. T T Krishnamachari termed them a 'veritable dustbin of sentiments'; K C Wheare called them a 'manifesto of aims and aspirations' and a 'moral homily'; Sir Ivor Jennings dismissed them as 'pious aspirations'.

2. Illogical Arrangement: N Srinivasan criticised the DPSPs for mixing trivial issues with vital socio-economic questions, and for blending modern provisions with those based on sentiment. Sir Ivor Jennings also noted the absence of any consistent guiding philosophy.

3. Conservative Outlook: Sir Ivor Jennings remarked that the DPSPs reflect 19th-century English political philosophy, characterised by Fabian socialism without actual socialism. He warned they might become outdated for the 21st century.

4. Constitutional Conflict: K Santhanam warned that the DPSPs could trigger conflicts between the Centre and states, between the President and the Prime Minister, and between the Governor and the Chief Minister — especially when the Centre gives directions to states for DPSP implementation or when the President questions a bill passed by Parliament.

---

Despite criticisms, the DPSPs are not mere ornamental appendages. Their utility is widely acknowledged:

• L M Singhvi called them 'life-giving provisions' and 'the stuff of the Constitution's philosophy of social justice'.
• M C Chagla (former Chief Justice) held that full implementation would make India a welfare state in every sense.
• Dr Ambedkar stressed that they define the goal of Indian polity as 'economic democracy' — distinct from mere political democracy.
• Granville Austin described them as aimed at fostering social revolution and establishing its necessary conditions.
• Sir B N Rau regarded them as 'moral precepts' with 'at least an educative value'.

According to M C Setalvad (former Attorney General), DPSPs serve as:

1. An 'Instrument of Instructions' reminding all State authorities of the foundational social and economic order the Constitution seeks to build.
2. Beacon-lights for courts exercising judicial review.
3. Dominant background for all legislative and executive State action.
4. An amplification of the Preamble's promise of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

They also:

• Ensure policy continuity across changes in government.
• Fill the vacuum in Part III by providing social and economic rights.
• Enable political democracy to acquire economic democracy as its foundation.
• Empower the opposition to hold the ruling government accountable.
• Serve as a common political manifesto binding every ruling party regardless of ideology.

---

---

The tension between justiciable Fundamental Rights and the moral obligation to implement non-justiciable DPSPs has generated one of the most consequential constitutional debates in India.

Phase 1 — Supremacy of Fundamental Rights

Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951): The Supreme Court held that in any conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, Fundamental Rights prevail. DPSPs must conform to and remain subsidiary to Fundamental Rights. However, the Court clarified that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights via constitutional amendment. This prompted the 1st (1951), 4th (1955), and 17th (1964) Amendment Acts to implement certain DPSPs.

Phase 2 — Fundamental Rights Declared Unamendable

Golaknath Case (1967): The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights are 'sacrosanct' and Parliament cannot abridge or take them away even through constitutional amendment — including for DPSP implementation.

Phase 3 — Parliament Strikes Back

Parliament responded with:

• 24th Amendment Act (1971): Declared Parliament's power to abridge or remove any Fundamental Right through constitutional amendment.
• 25th Amendment Act (1971): Inserted Article 31C with two provisions:
  1. No law implementing DPSPs under Article 39(b) and (c) (distribution of material resources; prevention of concentration of wealth) shall be void for contravening Articles 14, 19, or 31.
  2. No court shall question such a law on the ground that it does not actually give effect to those DPSPs.

Phase 4 — Judicial Review Preserved

Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Supreme Court upheld the first provision of Article 31C as constitutional. However, it struck down the second provision as unconstitutional because judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be removed.

Phase 5 — DPSP Supremacy Attempted and Reversed

42nd Amendment Act (1976): Extended the protection of Article 31C to cover laws implementing any Directive Principle — not just Articles 39(b) and (c) — thereby seeking to give DPSPs primacy over Articles 14, 19 and 31.

Minerva Mills Case (1980): The Supreme Court struck down this extension as unconstitutional. The balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs was declared an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court held: 'They are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less than the other. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution.'

Present Position

• Fundamental Rights enjoy general supremacy over DPSPs.
• However, Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14 and 19 are subordinate to DPSPs specified in Article 39(b) and (c).
• Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights to implement DPSPs, provided the amendment does not damage the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Article 31 (right to property) was abolished by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.

---

Since 1950, both the Union and state governments have enacted laws and launched programmes to implement DPSPs:

• Planning: Planning Commission (1950) and Five Year Plans for socio-economic justice; replaced by NITI Aayog in 2015.
• Land Reforms: Abolition of zamindari, tenancy reforms, land ceilings, surplus land distribution, cooperative farming.
• Labour Laws: Minimum Wages Act (1948), Payment of Wages Act (1936), Factories Act (1948), Bonded Labour System Abolition Act (1976), Child Labour Prohibition Act (1986) — renamed as Child and Adolescent Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act in 2016; government banned child labour in 2006.
• Women's Rights: Maternity Benefit Act (1961), Equal Remuneration Act (1976).
• Nationalisation: Life insurance (1956), fourteen commercial banks (1969), general insurance (1971); abolition of Privy Purses (1971).
• Legal Aid: Legal Services Authorities Act (1987) — established nationwide free legal aid network and Lok Adalats (statutory conciliatory forums with civil court status; awards are binding and final with no appeal).
• Cottage Industries: Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Small-Scale Industries Board, Handloom Board, Handicrafts Board, Silk Board, etc.
• Rural Development: Community Development Programme (1952), NREGP (2006), Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (1999), and other programmes.
• Environment: Wildlife (Protection) Act (1972), Forest (Conservation) Act (1980), Central and State Pollution Control Boards, National Forest Policy (1988).
• Panchayati Raj: Three-tier system constitutionally protected by the 73rd Amendment Act (1992).
• SC/ST Protection: Protection of Civil Rights Act (1976), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (1989); 65th Amendment Act (1990) created a combined National Commission for SCs and STs; bifurcated it into two separate commissions.

---

Beyond Articles 36–51, three more non-justiciable Directives are found in other Parts of the Constitution:

1. Article 335 (Part XVI): Claims of SC/ST members shall be taken into consideration in making appointments to Union or State services, consistently with administrative efficiency.
2. Article 350A (Part XVII): Every State and local authority shall endeavour to provide adequate facilities for mother-tongue instruction at the primary stage for children from linguistic minority groups.
3. Article 351 (Part XVII): The Union has a duty to promote Hindi and develop it as a medium of expression for the composite culture of India.

Though located outside Part IV, these Directives carry equal importance; the judiciary insists that all parts of the Constitution must be read together.

---

• Origin: Irish Constitution (1937) → Spanish Constitution → Indian Constitution.
• Key descriptor: Dr Ambedkar — 'novel features'; Granville Austin — 'Conscience of the Constitution'.
• Article 37: Non-justiciable but 'fundamental in governance'; duty of State to apply.
• Classification: Socialistic / Gandhian / Liberal–Intellectual (unofficial; Constitution does not classify).
• 42nd Amendment (1976): Added four new DPSPs (Articles 39f, 39A, 43A, 48A).
• 44th Amendment (1978): Added one (Article 38 — minimise inequalities); abolished Article 31.
• 86th Amendment (2002): Changed Article 45 (early childhood care up to 6 years); made elementary education a FR under 21A.
• 97th Amendment (2011): Added Article 43B (cooperatives).
• Landmark cases: Champakam (1951) → Golaknath (1967) → Kesavananda Bharati (1973) → Minerva Mills (1980).
• Minerva Mills metaphor: Fundamental Rights and DPSPs = 'two wheels of a chariot'.
• Lok Adalat: Statutory forum; civil court status; awards binding and final; no appeal.
• Living vs. Minimum vs. Fair Wage: Living wage > Fair wage > Minimum wage in scope.
• Directives outside Part IV: Articles 335, 350A, 351.