Directive Principles of State Policy
The Directive Principles of State Policy occupy Part IV of the Indian Constitution, spanning Articles 36 to 51. Drawing inspiration from the Irish Constitution of 1937—which in turn had adapted them from the Spanish Constitution—the framers envisioned these principles as aspirational guidelines to steer the state toward social and economic justice. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar praised them as "novel features" of the Indian Constitution, underscoring their innovative role. Paired with the Fundamental Rights, they encapsulate the document's underlying philosophy and form its very soul, as noted by historian Granville Austin, who called this combination the "conscience of the Constitution."
Directive Principles of State Policy
The Directive Principles of State Policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, represent the guiding ideals that the state must consider when framing policies and laws. These principles serve as constitutional directives for the legislature, executive, and administration, outlining recommendations to foster social, economic, and political justice. As clarified in Article 36, the term "State" here mirrors its definition in Part III on Fundamental Rights, encompassing the central and state governments' legislative and executive organs, local authorities, and all other public bodies across India.
These principles draw inspiration from the "Instrument of Instructions" in the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided guidelines to colonial governors. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar succinctly captured this lineage, observing that the Directive Principles are "merely another name for the instrument of instructions," with the key shift being that they now instruct India's legislature and executive rather than British appointees. Together, they form a comprehensive blueprint for a modern democratic welfare state—one that prioritizes justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity as enshrined in the Constitution's Preamble. Far from the "police state" of colonial rule, they aim to realize economic and social democracy alongside the political democracy guaranteed by Fundamental Rights.
Although non-justiciable—meaning courts cannot enforce them through writs—the Directive Principles remain "fundamental in the governance of the country," as Article 37 mandates the state to apply them while making laws. Their influence extends to judicial interpretation: the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that laws advancing these principles can be deemed "reasonable" under Article 14 (equality before the law) or Article 19 (freedoms of speech, assembly, etc.), thereby shielding them from constitutional challenges. In this way, the principles subtly but powerfully shape India's legal and policy landscape.
Classification of Directive Principles of State Policy
Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly classify the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Part IV, scholars have grouped them into three broad categories based on their content and underlying philosophy: socialistic, Gandhian, and liberal-intellectual. This classification offers a practical lens for understanding their diverse aims, from promoting economic equity and welfare to fostering decentralized village governance and upholding individual freedoms.
Socialistic Principles in the Indian Constitution
The socialistic principles enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy embody the vision of a democratic socialist state. They guide the government toward fostering social and economic justice, minimizing disparities, and building a welfare-oriented society. These non-justiciable directives urge the state to prioritize the well-being of its citizens, ensuring equitable access to resources and opportunities.
At the heart of this framework is Article 38, which mandates the state to promote the welfare of the people by establishing a social order infused with justice—social, economic, and political. It explicitly calls for minimizing inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities, laying the groundwork for a more egalitarian society.
Building on this, Article 39 outlines specific economic goals: securing adequate means of livelihood for all citizens; distributing community resources equitably for the common good; preventing undue concentration of wealth and means of production; ensuring equal pay for equal work between men and women; protecting the health and strength of workers and children from abuse; and creating opportunities for children's healthy development. These provisions reflect a commitment to socialism by curbing exploitation and promoting fair resource allocation.
Complementing these are directives for accessible justice and support systems. Article 39A directs the state to promote equal justice and provide free legal aid to the economically disadvantaged, bridging the gap between the powerful and the poor. Article 41 further secures the right to work, education, and public assistance during unemployment, old age, sickness, or disablement, emphasizing the state's role as a protector in times of vulnerability.
Worker welfare receives focused attention through Articles 42 and 43. The former requires provisions for just and humane working conditions, including maternity relief, while the latter aims for a living wage, a decent standard of living, and social and cultural opportunities for all workers. Article 43A advances industrial democracy by encouraging workers' participation in industry management, fostering a collaborative ethos.
Finally, Article 47 underscores public health as a national priority, tasking the state with improving nutrition levels, raising living standards, and enhancing overall public health. Together, these principles chart a progressive path toward socialism, balancing individual rights with collective prosperity in India's constitutional design.
Gandhian Principles in the Directive Principles of State Policy
The Gandhian Principles form a cornerstone of India's Directive Principles of State Policy, embodying Mahatma Gandhi's visionary programme for national reconstruction during the independence movement. To honor his dreams of a decentralized, self-reliant, and ethically grounded society, the Constitution weaves several of these ideas into non-justiciable yet morally compelling directives for the state.
At the heart of Gandhi's philosophy lies village self-governance. Article 40 mandates the state to organize village panchayats, equipping them with adequate powers and authority so they can function as genuine units of self-government. This reflects Gandhi's belief in Gram Swaraj, or village-level democracy, as the foundation of true freedom.
Complementing this is a focus on economic empowerment through rural industries. Article 43 directs the state to promote cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis, fostering livelihoods in rural areas and countering the dehumanizing effects of large-scale industrialization that Gandhi critiqued.
Building on cooperative ideals, Article 43B urges the state to encourage the voluntary formation of cooperative societies, ensuring their autonomous functioning, democratic control, and professional management—a nod to Gandhi's emphasis on collective, non-exploitative economic models.
Gandhi's compassion extended to society's most vulnerable. Article 46 requires the state to promote the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and other weaker sections, while protecting them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
Public health and moral discipline also feature prominently. Article 47 calls for prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs injurious to health, aligning with Gandhi's advocacy for personal purity and swadeshi temperance.
Finally, reverence for life underscores Article 48, which instructs the state to prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle, while taking steps to improve their breeds. This principle captures Gandhi's deep-rooted cultural and ethical commitment to cow protection as a symbol of non-violence and sustainable agriculture.
Together, these directives inspire the state to pursue Gandhi's holistic vision, blending political decentralization, economic equity, social justice, and moral upliftment.
Liberal-Intellectual Principles
The liberal-intellectual principles enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy embody the core ideology of liberalism, urging the state to foster equality, progress, and harmony across society. These non-justiciable guidelines direct the government to pursue enlightened reforms that prioritize individual rights, scientific advancement, and global cooperation.
A key focus is on social uniformity and welfare. Article 44 mandates the state to secure a uniform civil code for all citizens throughout India, promoting legal equality beyond religious or communal divides. Complementing this, Article 45 requires provisions for early childhood care and education for all children until they reach six years of age, laying a strong foundation for future generations.
Economic modernization forms another pillar. Under Article 48, the state must organize agriculture and animal husbandry along modern and scientific lines, ensuring sustainable productivity and rural development. Environmental stewardship is equally emphasized in Article 48A, which obliges the government to protect and improve the environment while safeguarding forests and wildlife. Cultural preservation follows suit in Article 49, tasking the state with protecting monuments, places, and objects of artistic or historic interest declared to be of national importance.
Institutional reforms and international outlook round out these principles. Article 50 calls for the separation of the judiciary from the executive within public services, strengthening the rule of law. Finally, Article 51 promotes international peace and security, just relations among nations, respect for international law and treaty obligations, and the settlement of global disputes through arbitration, positioning India as a responsible player on the world stage.
Amendments to Directive Principles
Over the years, several constitutional amendments have enriched India's Directive Principles of State Policy by introducing new directives that guide the state toward social and economic justice. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, enacted during the Emergency, marked a significant expansion by adding four fresh principles to the original list. These obligated the state to secure opportunities for the healthy development of children (Article 39); to promote equal justice and provide free legal aid to the poor (Article 39A); to organize workers' participation in the management of industries (Article 43A); and to protect and improve the environment while safeguarding forests and wildlife (Article 48A).
Building on this momentum, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced another principle under Article 38, directing the state to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities—a nod to reducing disparities across society.
Subsequent amendments refined these principles further. The 86th Amendment Act of 2002 transformed Article 45 by shifting its focus: while it elevated free and compulsory elementary education as a fundamental right under the newly inserted Article 21A, the revised directive now mandates early childhood care and education for all children until they reach six years of age.
Finally, the 97th Amendment Act of 2011 addressed the cooperative sector by adding Article 43B, which requires the state to promote the voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control, and professional management of cooperative societies, thereby strengthening grassroots economic institutions.
The Sanction Behind the Directive Principles
The idea of distinguishing between justiciable and non-justiciable rights originated with Sir B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly. His recommendation—that individual rights be categorized accordingly—was readily accepted by the Drafting Committee. This led to the incorporation of Fundamental Rights, which courts can enforce, in Part III of the Constitution, while the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), intended as guiding ideals rather than enforceable mandates, found their place in Part IV.
Although the DPSP are explicitly non-justiciable, Article 37 underscores their importance by declaring them "fundamental in the governance of the country." It mandates that the state must apply these principles when making laws, creating a moral obligation on authorities to pursue them. Yet their true power lies not in legal compulsion but in political accountability—public opinion. As Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, a key framer, observed, no government answerable to the people could ignore Part IV without risking its credibility. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar echoed this in the Constituent Assembly, noting that a popularly elected government "can hardly ignore the Directive Principles while shaping its policy," or face the electorate's judgment at the polls.
The framers deliberately made these principles non-enforceable to accommodate India's realities at independence. Financial constraints limited the state's capacity to implement them immediately. The country's immense diversity and widespread backwardness posed practical hurdles. Above all, the fledgling nation, grappling with myriad challenges, needed flexibility to prioritize, time, and tailor their fulfillment without the rigidity of court mandates. Taking a pragmatic stance, the Constitution makers relied on an awakened public opinion as the ultimate sanction, rather than judicial enforcement, to drive these ideals forward.
Criticisms of Directive Principles
The Directive Principles of State Policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, have long drawn scrutiny—not least from some members of the Constituent Assembly itself, as well as leading constitutional scholars and political thinkers. Critics have raised pointed objections on several key grounds, which merit careful examination.
Criticisms of Directive Principles Non-Justiciability
A central criticism of the Directive Principles of State Policy centers on their non-justiciable nature, rendering them devoid of legal enforceability in courts. Constituent Assembly member K.T. Shah dismissed them as mere "pious superfluities," likening them to "a cheque on a bank, payable only when the resources of the bank permit." Similarly, Nasiruddin likened these principles to "New Year's resolutions, which are broken on the second of January." T.T. Krishnamachari went further, calling them a "veritable dustbin of sentiments." Outside India, scholars echoed this skepticism: K.C. Wheare viewed them as a "manifesto of aims and aspirations" that amounted to little more than a "moral homily," while Sir Ivor Jennings branded them "pious aspirations."
Illogically Arranged
One prominent criticism of the Directive Principles of State Policy is their haphazard organization, which lacks any consistent philosophical foundation. Legal scholar N. Srinivasan captured this flaw vividly, noting that the principles are "neither properly classified nor logically arranged." He highlighted how the list muddles trivial issues with pivotal economic and social concerns, awkwardly fusing forward-looking provisions grounded in reason and science with antiquated ones driven by mere sentiment and prejudice. The constitutional expert Sir Ivor Jennings echoed this view, emphasizing that the Directive Principles as a whole betray no unifying philosophy.
3. A Conservative Perspective
Sir Ivor Jennings, a leading constitutional scholar, critiqued the Directive Principles of State Policy as deeply rooted in the political philosophy of 19th-century England. He colorfully observed that "the ghosts of Sidney and Beatrice Webb stalk through the pages of the text," arguing that Part IV of the Constitution captures the essence of Fabian Socialism—while omitting its socialist economic thrust. In Jennings's view, these principles were well-suited to India in the mid-20th century, but their fitness for the 21st century is an open question; indeed, they may well prove entirely outdated.
4. Constitutional Conflict
Renowned constitutional expert K. Santhanam identified a potential source of friction in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs): they could spark conflicts at multiple levels of governance. These arise primarily because the DPSPs, though non-justiciable, carry an implicit authority that might pit constitutional functionaries against one another.
At the federal level, the Union government can issue binding directions to states on implementing these principles. Non-compliance could invoke Article 365, empowering the Centre to dismiss a recalcitrant state government. A similar tension might emerge between the President and the Prime Minister. If Parliament, under the Prime Minister's leadership, passes a bill that contravenes the DPSPs, the President could withhold assent, arguing that these principles form the bedrock of governance and that the Union ministry cannot flout them.
This dynamic repeats at the state level, where the Governor might clash with the Chief Minister over adherence to the DPSPs, mirroring the Centre-state impasse. Santhanam's critique underscores how the DPSPs' moral weight, without clear enforceability, risks undermining the delicate balance of India's constitutional framework.
Utility of Directive Principles
Despite the criticisms and limitations often leveled against them, the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) are far from a superfluous addition to the Indian Constitution. The Constitution itself proclaims them "fundamental in the governance of the country," embedding them as the moral and philosophical core of India's aspirations. Eminent jurist L.M. Singhvi described them as "the life-giving provisions of the Constitution," embodying its commitment to social justice. Similarly, former Chief Justice M.C. Chagla envisioned their full realization transforming India into "a heaven on earth"—not merely a political democracy, but a true welfare state devoted to its citizens' well-being. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized their role in defining the goal of Indian polity as "economic democracy," distinct from mere "political democracy." Historian Granville Austin saw them as instruments to advance social revolution by creating the necessary conditions for its success, while constitutional advisor Sir B.N. Rau viewed them as "moral precepts" for state authorities, offering at least an educative value.
Former Attorney General M.C. Setalvad underscored their practical utility, noting that though they confer no legal rights or remedies, they serve multiple vital functions. Acting like an "Instrument of Instructions," they offer general recommendations to all organs of the Indian state, constantly reminding them of the core principles underlying the new social and economic order envisioned by the Constitution. They have also guided courts in wielding their power of judicial review—the authority to assess the constitutional validity of laws—serving as beacon-lights in interpreting legislation. More broadly, the DPSPs provide a commanding backdrop for all state actions, whether legislative or executive, and offer courts additional interpretive guidance. In essence, they enrich the Preamble's grand promises of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity for all Indian citizens.
Beyond these roles, the Directive Principles exert a profound influence on governance and politics. They promote stability and continuity in domestic and foreign policies across political, economic, and social domains, even amid changes in ruling parties. Supplementary to the Fundamental Rights in Part III, they address gaps by incorporating social and economic entitlements, ensuring that political democracy is bolstered by economic democracy—without which the former lacks substance. Their pursuit fosters an environment where citizens can fully enjoy their Fundamental Rights. Politically, they empower the opposition to scrutinize and influence government actions, holding ruling parties accountable for deviations. They also act as a yardstick for evaluating governmental performance, allowing the public to judge policies against these constitutional ideals. Ultimately, the DPSPs function as a common political manifesto, binding every ruling party—regardless of ideology—to recognize them as a "guide, philosopher, and friend" in legislative and executive endeavors.
Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles
From the outset of the Indian Constitution, a tension has simmered between the Fundamental Rights—which are justiciable and enforceable in courts—and the Directive Principles of State Policy, which are non-justiciable yet impose a moral duty on the state to pursue them (as per Article 37). This clash became evident early on. In the landmark State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court held that in any conflict, Fundamental Rights prevail. The Directives, it ruled, must remain subsidiary to these rights. However, the Court also affirmed Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments, prompting swift legislative action: the First Amendment Act (1951), Fourth Amendment Act (1955), and Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964) were enacted to advance select Directives.
This dynamic shifted dramatically in the Golaknath case (1967), where the Supreme Court declared Fundamental Rights "sacrosanct" and beyond Parliament's reach to abridge or curtail, even for implementing Directives. Parliament countered with the 24th Amendment Act (1971), explicitly affirming its authority to amend any Fundamental Right, and the 25th Amendment Act (1971), which introduced Article 31C. This article offered two protections for laws implementing the socialist Directives in Article 39(b) (distribution of material resources for the common good) and Article 39(c) (prevention of wealth concentration): first, such laws could not be struck down for violating Article 14 (equality), Article 19 (freedoms like speech and movement), or Article 31 (property rights); second, courts could not question whether these laws truly advanced the policy, if declared as such.
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) refined this further. The Court invalidated the second provision of Article 31C, reasoning that judicial review is a "basic feature" of the Constitution and cannot be ousted. Yet it upheld the first provision, preserving protection for Directive-linked laws against specific Fundamental Rights challenges.
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles differ fundamentally in nature and enforcement. The former act as prohibitions on state action—negative injunctions safeguarding individual liberties like equality and personal freedoms, automatically enforceable through courts with legal sanctions. They foster political and civil democracy, prioritizing individual welfare. In contrast, Directives are positive mandates urging the state toward social and economic democracy, promoting community welfare with moral and political weight. They demand legislation for realization and cannot be directly enforced; courts will not invalidate laws for breaching them but may uphold statutes enacted to fulfill Directives.
The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) sought to broaden Article 31C's shield, extending it to all Directives, not just Article 39(b) and (c), effectively granting Directives primacy over Articles 14, 19, and 31. The Supreme Court rejected this expansion in the Minerva Mills case (1980), declaring it unconstitutional. There, the Court eloquently affirmed the Constitution's foundational balance: "The Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. They together constitute the core of commitment to social revolution. They are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less than the other." Disturbing this harmony, it ruled, violates the basic structure doctrine. While Article 31 (property rights) was later abolished by the 44th Amendment Act (1978), the Court subordinated Articles 14 and 19 only to Article 39(b) and (c).
Today, Fundamental Rights hold supremacy, but this does not render Directives impotent. Parliament may amend them to realize Directives, provided it preserves the Constitution's basic structure. This equilibrium ensures individual protections advance alongside the nation's social revolution.
Implementation of Directive Principles
Since 1950, successive governments at the Centre and in the states have enacted numerous laws and launched various programmes to realise the Directive Principles of State Policy. These efforts span economic planning, social welfare, rural upliftment, environmental protection, and social justice, reflecting a sustained commitment to the Constitution's vision of a just society.
Economic planning formed the cornerstone of these initiatives. In 1950, the Planning Commission was established to guide the nation's development through successive Five Year Plans, which prioritised socio-economic justice and the reduction of inequalities in income, status, and opportunities. This body was replaced in 2015 by NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India), a more dynamic institution for cooperative federalism. Land reforms further reshaped agrarian structures, with nearly all states abolishing intermediaries like zamindars, jagirdars, and inamdars; introducing tenancy protections such as secure tenure and fair rents; imposing ceilings on landholdings; distributing surplus land to landless labourers; and promoting cooperative farming. To safeguard workers, a suite of labour laws was introduced, including the Minimum Wages Act (1948), Payment of Wages Act (1936), Payment of Bonus Act (1965), Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (1970), Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act (1986)—later renamed the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act (1986) in 2016 after a 2006 ban on child labour—Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act (1976), Trade Unions Act (1926), Factories Act (1948), Mines Act (1952), Industrial Disputes Act (1947), and Workmen's Compensation Act (1923). Women's interests received attention through the Maternity Benefit Act (1961) and Equal Remuneration Act (1976). Financial resources were redirected for public welfare via the nationalisation of life insurance (1956), fourteen major commercial banks (1969), general insurance (1971), and the abolition of privy purses (1971).
Rural development and decentralised governance saw transformative steps. Cottage and village industries flourished under bodies like the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Small-Scale Industries Board, National Small Industries Corporation, Handloom Board, Handicrafts Board, Coir Board, and Silk Board. Employment and living standards were boosted through programmes such as the Community Development Programme (1952), Hill Area Development Programme (1960), Drought-Prone Area Programme (1973), Minimum Needs Programme (1974), Integrated Rural Development Programme (1978), Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (1989), Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (1999), Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (2001), and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (2005), effective from 2006. Gandhiji's vision of self-reliant villages materialised with the three-tier Panchayati Raj system at village, block, and district levels, enshrined constitutionally by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act (1992). Free legal aid reached the marginalised via the Legal Services Authorities Act (1987), which created a nationwide network, including Lok Adalats—statutory forums for amicable dispute resolution with civil court powers, whose awards are final and non-appealable.
Social justice measures targeted weaker sections comprehensively. Reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and other backward classes were instituted in education, jobs, and legislatures. Protective laws included the Untouchability (Offences) Act (1955), renamed Protection of Civil Rights Act (1976), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (1989). Oversight bodies evolved from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (via the 65th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1990), bifurcated in 2003 by the 89th Constitutional Amendment Act into separate commissions for SCs and STs. Additional commissions promoted weaker sections: National Commission for Backward Classes (1993)—elevated constitutionally by the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act (2018)—National Commission for Minorities (1993), National Commission for Women (1992), and National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (2007). In 2019, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act enabled a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment, excluding those already covered by SC/ST/OBC quotas.
Environmental and sectoral advancements complemented these efforts. Wildlife and forests gained protection under the Wildlife (Protection) Act (1972) and Forest (Conservation) Act (1980), alongside the National Forest Policy (1988). Pollution control boards, established by Water and Air Acts, monitor environmental health. Agriculture modernised with better seeds, fertilisers, irrigation, and scientific animal husbandry. Public health improved through primary health centres, hospitals, and campaigns against diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, AIDS, and others. Cultural heritage was preserved by the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (1951). Judicial independence advanced with the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973), separating judiciary from executive magistracy. Some states banned cow, calf, and bullock slaughter, introduced old-age pensions for those over 65, and pursued non-alignment and Panchsheel in foreign policy for global peace.
Despite these strides, Directive Principles remain incompletely realised due to constraints like limited financial resources, adverse socio-economic conditions, population pressures, and strained Centre-state relations.
Directive Principles Beyond Part IV
Beyond the Directive Principles enshrined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, several additional directives appear in other parts, reinforcing key social and cultural objectives. These provisions, though scattered, underscore the framers' vision for an inclusive and culturally vibrant nation.
One such directive, under Article 335 in Part XVI, mandates that the claims of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to appointments in Union and State services must be considered, balanced against the need to maintain administrative efficiency. This ensures affirmative action in public employment without compromising governance standards.
Similarly, Article 350A in Part XVII directs every State and local authority to strive for adequate facilities for primary education in the mother tongue of children from linguistic minority groups. This provision promotes linguistic diversity and equitable access to early education.
Article 351, also in Part XVII, imposes a duty on the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language and develop it as a medium for expressing India's composite culture. It highlights Hindi's role in fostering national unity amid diversity.
Like those in Part IV, these directives are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced through courts. Nonetheless, the judiciary accords them equal weight, interpreting the Constitution as a harmonious whole where every part informs the others. This approach ensures their spirit influences judicial reasoning and state policy.