Directive Principles of State Policy

The DPSPs sit in Part IV, Articles 36–51. They are non-justiciable, yet Article 37 declares them “fundamental in the governance of the country”, guiding the state in building a welfare order. The model was borrowed from the Irish Constitution, which in turn drew on Spanish constitutional tradition.

The DPSPs are called the “kernel of the Constitution”; Ambedkar read Fundamental Rights as political democracy and DPSPs as the foundation of economic democracy. L.M. Singhvi called them the “life-giving provisions of the Constitution”.

Criticism

Their non-justiciability and vague language draw fire; socio-economic laws may restrict individual rights. B.N. Rau argued the Constitution is not the place for moral precepts; Ivor Jennings dismissed them as “pious aspirations”; K.T. Shah thought the document too political and insufficiently social.

Uniform Civil Code — Article 44

Article 44 places a Uniform Civil Code among the Directive Principles — a common set of personal laws on marriage, divorce, inheritance and succession, to replace religion-based personal laws. The debate is old: the Rukhmabai case (1884–88) exposed the tension between custom and modern individual rights, and the Hindu Code reforms of the 1950s recast Hindu marriage and inheritance.

The argument, both ways

• Madhu Kishwar — codification can weaken the diversity of customary practice.
• Flavia Agnes — the politics of women’s rights within personal-law reform.
• Martha Nussbaum — sex equality must be secured through law.
• Romila Thapar — demarcate civil jurisdiction from religious authority.
• Nivedita Menon — favour internal reform, new-area legislation and a gender-just framework over a single imposed code.

Judicial references

The Goa model — a common civil code derived from Portuguese law, with registration of marriages, communion of assets and equal inheritance — is often cited, though patriarchal practice and community resistance limit it.

Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles — Conflict to Balance

Different forms, a common constitutional purpose. Fundamental Rights are justiciable, negative limits on the state, protecting liberty and political democracy. DPSPs are non-justiciable positive goals, directing the state toward social and economic democracy. The relationship was settled through a long judicial arc.

From the primacy of rights to the balance of Parts III and IV. Champakam (1951) (FR prevail over DPSPs; led to the First Amendment and Art 15(4)) → Golaknath (1967) (Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights; led to 24th & 25th Amendments) → Kesavananda (1973) (Parliament may amend, but not the basic structure; balance of III & IV recognised) → Minerva Mills (1980) (Balance of III & IV is itself basic structure; absolute primacy to DPSPs invalid).

The Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV.

Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Minerva Mills

The courts later wove the two together: Olga Tellis read the right to livelihood into Article 21; Unni Krishnan read the right to education into it; I.R. Coelho subjected Ninth-Schedule laws to basic-structure review.

Article 31C and private property

Article 31C gives priority to laws implementing Article 39(b) (distribution of material resources for the common good) and 39(c) (preventing concentration of wealth), shielding them from challenge under Articles 14 and 19. Triggered by the Bank Nationalisation case (R.C. Cooper, 1970) and introduced by the 25th Amendment, it was upheld in Kesavananda (minus the bar on judicial inquiry); the 42nd Amendment‘s extension to all DPSPs was struck down in Minerva Mills. On 5 November 2024, a nine-judge bench held by 7:2 that Article 31C survives in its original form, and that not all private property is automatically a “material resource of the community”.

UPSC 2021

On reconciling Fundamental Rights with Directive Principles.

UPSC 2024 — On whether Directive Principles are more fundamental than Fundamental Rights.

Directive Principles in the Era of Neo-Liberalism

Neo-liberalism stresses liberalisation, privatisation, globalisation and a smaller state; the DPSPs stress active state responsibility. The tension is real: a retreating interventionist state, privatised education and health, contractualised labour, weakened worker participation under Article 43A, and market-led inequality all strain the equitable-distribution promise of Article 39.

Yet the principles remain live. James Chiriyankandath, Diego Maiorano, James Manor and Louise Tillin, in The Politics of Poverty Reduction in India: The UPA Government, 2004 to 2014, show that growth in the neo-liberal period itself enabled welfare programmes — MGNREGA, the National Food Security Act, JNNURM, the Forest Rights Act and the RTE Act, 2009. The state retains regulatory capacity; equal pay and gender justice align with global liberal values; climate change demands intervention under Article 48A; and Articles 41, 42 and 47 reflect non-negotiable human-rights obligations.

DPSP in the Era of Liberalisation

Directive Principles — Part IV, Articles 36–51: the welfare state, positive liberalism, social and economic justice, democratic socialism, Gandhian ideals, directions to legislature and executive. Sir B.N. Rau — moral precepts for state authorities; L.M. Singhvi — the philosophy of social justice.

“conscience of the constitution”

Granville Austin (on Fundamental Rights & Directive Principles)

“The frontiers of Indian democracy have been widened like never before”

Neerja Gopal Jayal (after LPG reforms)

Relevance after 1991

The state moved from protector of the public sector to regulator/facilitator; market fundamentalism grew; inequality rose; welfare retrenchment and rising private education/health costs became a worry. DPSP hold the welfare character against the “rolling back of the state”, supplement rights with socio-economic rights (health, work, education, food, clean environment) and protect the vulnerable. Robert Cox’s “internationalisation of the state” makes them more important; Suhas Palshikar (“democratisation of democracy”) and Ronald Dworkin (“democracy of fairness”) fit their logic.

Implementation & the courts

Land-reform laws, bank/industry nationalisation, welfare schemes, Panchayati Raj, Equal Remuneration Act, RTE, National Food Security Act, MGNREGA, Maternity Benefit Act, Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act 2013.

• Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union — DPSP as forerunners of the UN right to development, part of fundamental human rights.
• K.K. Verma v. Union of India — growth must benefit all, especially the vulnerable; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India — balance environment and industry; Tata Power Co. v. Maharashtra ERC — tariffs must consider low-income consumers.

In globalisation, DPSP ensure that growth does not override social justice and democratic fairness.