Evolution and Evaluation of DPSPs
🌱 New Directive Principles — Evolution Through Amendments
The story of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) doesn’t end with the original Constitution.
Over time, as India’s society and economy evolved, Parliament added new principles to reflect emerging priorities — like environment, education, workers’ rights, and co-operatives.
Let’s trace them chronologically:
1️⃣ 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 (The Mini Constitution)
This amendment added four new Directive Principles.
It was during the Emergency period (1975–77) when Indira Gandhi’s government wanted to emphasize social and economic justice.
So, the following were inserted:
- Article 39 — To ensure healthy development of children.
- Article 39A — To provide equal justice and free legal aid to the poor.
- Article 43A — To ensure participation of workers in the management of industries.
- Article 48A — To protect and improve the environment, and safeguard forests and wildlife.
👉 These reflected the global shift towards social justice and environmental protection during the 1970s.
2️⃣ 44th Amendment Act, 1978
After the Emergency, the Janata Party government came to power and added another directive to Article 38, saying that the State shall minimise inequalities not only in income, but also in status, facilities, and opportunities.
👉 This broadened the idea of equality — not just in economic terms, but in all aspects of life.
3️⃣ 86th Amendment Act, 2002
This was a landmark reform under Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government.
Education for children was moved from being a mere Directive Principle (Article 45) to a Fundamental Right (Article 21A).
So, Article 45 was rewritten — now it directs the State to provide
“early childhood care and education for all children until they complete six years of age.”
👉 So after this amendment:
- Right to free and compulsory education (6–14 years) = Fundamental Right (Article 21A)
- Early childhood care (below 6 years) = Directive Principle (Article 45)
4️⃣ 97th Amendment Act, 2011
This added Article 43B, requiring the State to promote:
“Voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control, and professional management of co-operative societies.”
👉 This reflected the growing importance of co-operative movements in agriculture, banking, and rural industries — aligning with Gandhian ideas of self-reliance and collective effort.
🧭 Summary of New Additions
| Amendment | Year | New Directive(s) Added |
|---|---|---|
| 42nd | 1976 | Articles 39 (child health), 39A, 43A, 48A |
| 44th | 1978 | Article 38 (2) – reduce inequalities |
| 86th | 2002 | Modified Article 45 – early childhood care |
| 97th | 2011 | Article 43B – co-operative societies |
⚖️ Sanction Behind Directive Principles
Now comes a very important conceptual part:
If these principles are non-justiciable, i.e. not legally enforceable, then what is their sanction or force?
Why should the government follow them?
1️⃣ Sir B.N. Rau’s Classification
Sir B.N. Rau — the Constitutional Advisor — suggested dividing individual rights into two categories:
- Justiciable → enforceable by courts (these became the Fundamental Rights, Part III)
- Non-justiciable → not enforceable, but still guiding (these became the Directive Principles, Part IV)
This recommendation was accepted by the Drafting Committee led by Dr. Ambedkar.
2️⃣ The Real Sanction — Moral and Political, Not Legal
Article 37 of the Constitution clearly says:
“These principles are fundamental in the governance of the country, and it shall be the duty of the State to apply them in making laws.”
So, while courts cannot enforce them, the people can — through public opinion and elections.
As Alladi Krishna Swamy Ayyar beautifully said:
“No ministry responsible to the people can afford to ignore these provisions.”
And Dr. Ambedkar added:
“A government resting on popular vote can hardly ignore these principles. If it does, it will have to answer before the electorate.”
👉 So the real force behind the DPSPs is not law, but democracy itself — the fear of being voted out if the government ignores them.
3️⃣ Why Non-Justiciable?
The framers of the Constitution were realistic, not idealistic.
They made the DPSPs non-justiciable for three practical reasons:
- Financial Constraints — In 1950, India was a poor, newly independent country. Implementing welfare measures required massive funds.
- Social and Economic Backwardness — With huge inequalities and regional diversities, uniform implementation was impossible.
- Administrative Freedom — The young government needed flexibility to decide what to do first, where, and how.
In simple words — they gave the government freedom with responsibility, not legal compulsion.
As one scholar remarked:
“The Constitution-makers preferred awakened public opinion over court orders as the real sanction for fulfilling these principles.”
🌿 Utility of the Directive Principles
Let’s begin by asking a simple question —
If the Directive Principles are non-justiciable, if we cannot go to court to enforce them, then why keep them at all?
Are they just ornamental — meant only to decorate the Constitution?
Absolutely not.
In fact, the framers themselves declared that these principles are “fundamental to the governance of the country.”
That means every government — irrespective of which party is in power — must treat them as a moral compass for policymaking.
💡 Voices in Support
Many constitutional thinkers and jurists have beautifully explained their importance:
- L.M. Singhvi called them “the life-giving provisions of the Constitution.” He said that the DPSPs express the soul of India’s philosophy of social justice.
- M.C. Chagla, former Chief Justice of India, remarked:
“If all these principles are fully carried out, our country would indeed be a heaven on earth.”
He meant that DPSPs transform India from just a political democracy to a welfare state.
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said:
“They lay down that the goal of Indian polity is economic democracy — as distinct from political democracy.”
(In other words, Fundamental Rights give us political freedom; DPSPs aim for economic equality.)
- Granville Austin, the American scholar, called them:
“Aimed at furthering the goals of the social revolution.”
- Sir B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Advisor, said:
“They are moral precepts — at least of educative value.”
So, DPSPs were meant to educate governments — to remind them constantly:
“Power is not just to rule, but to uplift.”
⚖️ Practical Utility — As Explained by M.C. Setalvad
M.C. Setalvad, the first Attorney General of India, listed several ways in which the Directive Principles hold great significance even without legal force.
Let’s go through them one by one.
1️⃣ Like an “Instrument of Instructions”
They act like guidelines — reminding every government and authority about the social and economic order the Constitution wants to build.
They are like the moral constitution within the legal Constitution.
2️⃣ Beacon-Lights for the Judiciary
Though non-enforceable, the courts use DPSPs as guiding stars while interpreting the Constitution.
When deciding whether a law is “reasonable,” courts often see if it helps realise any Directive Principle.
If yes, the court may uphold it even if it restricts some individual freedom.
3️⃣ Background to All State Action
Whether it is Parliament making a law, or the executive forming a policy — the Directive Principles form the background philosophy that gives meaning and direction to all governance.
4️⃣ Amplify the Preamble
The Preamble talks about Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
The DPSPs give life to these words by explaining how to achieve them in practice.
🌺 Other Roles of Directive Principles
Apart from the above, DPSPs also serve many practical and political purposes:
- Ensure Stability in Policy:
They create continuity in national policies — even if governments change, the goals remain the same. - Supplement Fundamental Rights:
They fill the gap left by Part III — while Fundamental Rights focus on individual freedom, DPSPs focus on social and economic welfare. - Enable Real Enjoyment of Rights:
Political democracy means little without economic equality. DPSPs create the conditions where rights can be meaningfully enjoyed. - Tool for Opposition:
The Opposition can question the ruling government:
“Your policies violate the Directive Principles!”
— making them a powerful political weapon. - Test of Government Performance:
Voters can judge policies and progress by comparing them with the DPSPs — are we moving towards equality, justice, and welfare? - Common Political Manifesto:
Every party — whether Left or Right — must respect these principles.
They are like the shared constitutional agenda for every government.
In short, DPSPs act as the “guide, philosopher, and friend” of every ruling party.
⚔️ Criticism of the Directive Principles
Despite their lofty ideals, DPSPs have faced several criticisms from scholars and even some members of the Constituent Assembly.
Let’s look at them one by one.
1️⃣ No Legal Force
This is the most common criticism.
Because they are non-justiciable, many critics felt they were just empty promises.
- K.T. Shah called them “pious superfluities” — nice to read but meaningless in effect.
- He compared them to “a cheque on a bank payable only when the bank has funds”.
- Nasiruddin mocked them as “New Year resolutions — broken on the second of January.”
- T.T. Krishnamachari called them “a veritable dustbin of sentiments.”
- K.C. Wheare saw them as a “manifesto of aims and aspirations” with only moral value.
- Sir Ivor Jennings dismissed them as “pious aspirations.”
👉 So, the biggest complaint was — they sound noble, but without enforceability, they lack teeth.
2️⃣ Illogical Arrangement
Some critics said the Directives are not systematically arranged.
They mix up major economic issues with minor moral suggestions.
As N. Srinivasan observed:
“The declaration combines the modern with the old, reason with sentiment, and important matters with trivial ones.”
So, there’s no clear philosophical order — just a mix of everything.
3️⃣ Conservative Outlook
Sir Ivor Jennings felt that the DPSPs reflect 19th-century English thought — particularly Fabian Socialism — and may become outdated for a modern India.
He sarcastically said:
“The ghosts of Sydney and Beatrice Webb stalk through the pages of Part IV.”
He believed that while they may have been relevant in mid-20th century India, they could become obsolete in the 21st century.
4️⃣ Possibility of Constitutional Conflict
K. Santhanam highlighted that DPSPs could create conflicts between constitutional authorities, such as:
- Centre vs State: Centre may issue directions to implement certain principles, and dismiss a state for non-compliance.
- President vs Prime Minister: If Parliament passes a bill ignoring a Directive Principle, the President might refuse assent, arguing that it violates “fundamental governance principles.”
- Governor vs Chief Minister: The same kind of conflict could occur at the state level.
So, these could lead to institutional tensions.