Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) – UPSC Notes – Indian Polity

The DPSP is a set of guidelines outlined in Part IV of the Constitution, specifically from Articles 36 to 51. The idea for these principles was taken from the Irish Constitution of 1937, which had initially borrowed it from the Spanish Constitution. Dr. B R Ambedkar, one of the key figures in framing the Indian Constitution, considered these principles as unique and important. They, along with the Fundamental Rights, embody the philosophy and essence of the Constitution. Granville Austin has referred to the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights as the ‘Conscience of the Constitution.’

Key Aspects of DPSP

  1. The term ‘Directive Principles of State Policy‘ refers to the guiding ideals that the government should consider when creating policies and passing laws. These principles are like constitutional instructions or recommendations for the government in its legislative, executive, and administrative functions. As per Article 36, the term ‘State‘ in Part IV has the same meaning as in Part III which deals with Fundamental Rights. This includes the legislative and executive bodies of both the central and state governments, along with local authorities and other public entities in the country.
  2. The DPSP is similar to the ‘Instrument of Instructions’ outlined in the Government of India Act of 1935. According to Dr. B R Ambedkar, the Directive Principles are akin to the instrument of instructions issued to the Governor-General and Governors of the colonies of India by the British Government under the Government of India Act of 1935. He explained that what we call Directive Principles is essentially another term for the instrument of instruction. The only distinction lies in the fact that these are instructions directed towards the legislature and the executive.
  3. The Directive Principles form a thorough plan covering economic, social, and political aspects of a modern democratic state. Their goal is to achieve the lofty ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. These principles embody the concept of a ‘welfare state,’ in contrast to the ‘police state‘ prevalent during the colonial era. In essence, they strive to establish both economic and social democracy in the country.
  4. The DPSP are non-justiciable, meaning they are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation. Therefore, the government at various levels (Central, state, and local) cannot be compelled to implement them. However, the Constitution (Article 37) itself emphasizes that these principles are fundamental in the governance of the country, and it is the duty of the State to apply them while making laws.
  5. Despite being non-justiciable, the DPSP assists the courts in examining and determining the constitutional validity of a law. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that when evaluating the constitutionality of a law, if the court finds that the law seeks to implement a DPSP, it may consider such a law to be ‘reasonable‘ concerning Article 14 (equality before the law) or Article 19 (six freedoms), thereby saving the law from being deemed unconstitutional.

Classification of the DPSP

The Constitution does not specifically categorize the DPSP, but based on their content and direction, they can be broadly grouped into three categories: socialistic, Gandhian, and liberal-intellectual.

Socialistic Principles

These principles align with the ideology of socialism, outlining the framework for a democratic socialist state. They aim to achieve social and economic justice, steering towards a welfare state. They instruct the state to:

  1. Promote the welfare of the people by establishing a social order infused with justice—social, economic, and political—and to reduce inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities (Article 38).
  2. Ensure the right to adequate means of livelihood for all citizens, equitable distribution of community resources for the common good, prevention of wealth concentration, equal pay for equal work, preservation of workers’ and children’s health, and opportunities for the healthy development of children (Article 39).
  3. Promote equal justice and provide free legal aid to the poor (Article 39A).
  4. Ensure the right to work, education, and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement (Article 41).
  5. Make provisions for just and humane working conditions and maternity relief (Article 42).
  6. Ensure a living wage, a decent standard of life, and social and cultural opportunities for all workers (Article 43).
  7. Take steps to secure workers’ participation in the management of industries (Article 43A).
  8. Improve the level of nutrition, raise the standard of living, and enhance public health (Article 47).

Gandhian Principles

These principles are rooted in Gandhian ideology, reflecting the reconstruction program outlined by Gandhi during the national movement. Some of his ideas were incorporated as Directive Principles, requiring the State to:

  1. Organise village panchayats and empower them with the necessary powers and authority to function as units of self-government (Article 40).
  2. Promote cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in rural areas (Article 43).
  3. Promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control, and professional management of cooperative societies (Article 43B).
  4. Promote the educational and economic interests of SCs, STs, and other weaker sections of society and protect them from social injustice and exploitation (Article 46).
  5. Prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs that are injurious to health (Article 47).
  6. Prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle and work towards improving their breeds (Article 48).

Liberal–Intellectual Principles

The principles in this category embody the ideology of liberalism, guiding the state to:

  1. Secure a uniform civil code for all citizens throughout the country (Article 44).
  2. Provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years (Article 45).
  3. Organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines (Article 48).
  4. Protect and improve the environment, and safeguard forests and wildlife (Article 48A).
  5. Protect monuments, places, and objects of artistic or historic interest declared to be of national importance (Article 49).
  6. Separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State (Article 50).
  7. Promote international peace and security, maintain just and honorable relations between nations, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations, and encourage the settlement of international disputes by arbitration (Article 51).


The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced four additional DPSPs to the original list, instructing the State to:

  1. Secure opportunities for the healthy development of children (Article 39).
  2. Promote equal justice and provide free legal aid to the poor (Article 39A).
  3. Take steps to secure the participation of workers in the management of industries (Article 43A).
  4. Protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife (Article 48A).

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 added one more Directive Principle, requiring the State to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities (Article 38).

The 86th Amendment Act of 2002 modified the subject matter of Article 45, making elementary education a fundamental right under Article 21A. The amended directive necessitates the State to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.

The 97th Amendment Act of 2011 introduced a new DPSP concerning cooperative societies. It mandates the state to promote the voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control, and professional management of cooperative societies (Article 43B).

Sanction behind DPSP

Sir B N Rau, the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly, proposed a division of individual rights into two categories—justiciable and non-justiciable, a recommendation accepted by the Drafting Committee. Consequently, Fundamental Rights, justiciable in nature, are incorporated in Part III, and DPSP, non-justiciable, find their place in Part IV of the Constitution.

Despite being non-justiciable, the Constitution (Article 37) emphasizes that ‘these principles are fundamental in the governance of the country, and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.’ Thus, they impose a moral obligation on the state authorities, with the real force behind them being political, namely public opinion. As noted by Alladi Krishna Swamy Ayyar, ‘no ministry responsible to the people can afford light-heartedly to ignore the provisions in Part IV of the Constitution.’ Similarly, Dr. B R Ambedkar stated in the Constituent Assembly that a government that rests on the popular vote can hardly ignore the DPSP while shaping its policy. If any government ignores them, it will certainly have to answer for that before the electorate at the election time.’

The framers of the Constitution made the DPSP non-justiciable and legally non-enforceable for several reasons:

  1. The country lacked sufficient financial resources to implement them.
  2. The presence of vast diversity and backwardness would hinder their implementation.
  3. The newly independent Indian State, with numerous preoccupations, might be overwhelmed unless it was free to decide the order, time, place, and mode of fulfilling them.

‘The Constitution makers, therefore, taking a pragmatic view, refrained from giving teeth to these principles. They believed more in an awakened public opinion rather than in court procedures as the ultimate sanction for the fulfillment of these principles.

Criticism of the DPSP

The DPSP has faced criticism from members of the Constituent Assembly, as well as constitutional and political experts, on the following grounds:

No Legal Force:

Critics argue that the Directives lack legal force due to their non-justiciable nature. K T Shah termed them as ‘pious superfluities,’ likening them to ‘a cheque on a bank, payable only when the resources of the bank permit.’ Nasiruddin compared these principles to ‘new year’s resolutions, which are broken on the second of January.’ T T Krishnamachari referred to the Directives as ‘a veritable dustbin of sentiments,’ K C Wheare labeled them as a ‘manifesto of aims and aspirations,’ and Sir Ivor Jennings thought of them as only ‘pious aspirations.’

Illogically Arranged:

Critics argue that the Directives lack a logical arrangement based on a consistent philosophy. N Srinivasan stated that ‘the Directives are neither properly classified nor logically arranged,’ combining relatively unimportant issues with vital economic and social questions. Sir Ivor Jennings pointed out that these principles have no consistent philosophy.


Sir Ivor Jennings criticized the Directives, stating they are based on the political philosophy of 19th-century England, expressing Fabian Socialism without socialism. He suggested that the Directives might be suitable for India in the mid-20th century but questioned their relevance for the 21st century, speculating that they might become entirely outdated.

Constitutional Conflict:

K Santhanam has highlighted that the DPSP leads to constitutional conflicts:

  • (a) Between the Centre and the states,
  • (b) Between the President and the Prime Minister, and
  • (c) Between the governor and the chief minister.

According to him, the Centre can issue directions to the states concerning the implementation of these principles. In case of non-compliance, the Centre may dismiss the state government. Similarly, if the Prime Minister presents a bill to Parliament that violates the Directive Principles, the President has the authority to reject the bill. The rejection can be based on the argument that these principles are fundamental to the governance of the country, and therefore, the ministry has no right to ignore them. A similar constitutional conflict may arise between the governor and the chief minister at the state level.

Utility of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

Despite the criticisms and shortcomings mentioned earlier, the DPSP are not deemed unnecessary in the Constitution. The Constitution itself declares them as fundamental to the governance of the country. According to L M Singhvi, an eminent jurist and diplomat, ‘the Directives are the life-giving provisions of the Constitution. They constitute the stuff of the Constitution and its philosophy of social justice.’ M C Chagla, former Chief Justice of India, believes that ‘if all these principles are fully carried out, our country would indeed be a heaven on earth. India would then be not only a democracy in the political sense but also a welfare state looking after the welfare of its citizens.’

Dr. B R Ambedkar emphasized the significant value of the DPSP, asserting that they articulate the goal of Indian polity as ‘economic democracy,’ distinct from ‘political democracy.’ Granville Austin shared the view that these principles aim to advance the goals of the social revolution by establishing the necessary conditions for its realization. Sir B N Rau, the constitutional advisor to the Constituent Assembly, described the DPSP as ‘moral precepts‘ for the authorities of the state, emphasizing their educative value.

M C Setalvad, the former Attorney General of India, outlined the meaningful contributions of the DPSP despite lacking legal enforceability:

  • They function akin to an ‘Instrument of Instructions,’ offering general recommendations to all authorities in the Indian Union. This serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles underpinning the Constitution’s vision for a new social and economic order.
  • The Directive Principles act as guiding lights for the courts, particularly in the exercise of their power of judicial review. This power allows the courts to assess the constitutional validity of laws, with the principles providing a benchmark for such evaluations.
  • Serving as a dominating background to all State actions, both legislative and executive, the Directive Principles offer a guiding framework. They also play a role in guiding the courts in certain aspects of their decision-making.
  • The Preamble, which solemnly resolves to secure justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity for all citizens, is amplified by the principles. This underscores their role in shaping the overarching goals and ideals of the Indian Constitution.

The DPSP has several important roles:

  1. They help maintain stability and consistency in both domestic and foreign policies across political, economic, and social aspects, even when there’s a change in the ruling party.
  2. They act as additions to the fundamental rights of citizens, filling gaps in Part III by addressing social and economic rights.
  3. Implementing Directives creates a positive environment for citizens to fully enjoy their fundamental rights. Political democracy is incomplete without economic democracy.
  4. They allow the opposition to influence and oversee the government’s actions. The opposition can criticize the ruling party by pointing out any contradictions with the Directives.
  5. Directives become a significant benchmark for evaluating government performance. People can assess government policies and programs based on these constitutional principles.
  6. They function as a shared political manifesto. Regardless of a ruling party’s ideology, it must recognize that these principles should guide its legislative and executive actions.

Conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSP

There has been a conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in our Constitution. Fundamental Rights can be enforced by the courts, while Directive Principles are more like guidelines for the government. Even though the Constitution says that Directive Principles are not enforceable by the courts (non-justiciable), the government still has a moral duty to follow them.

In a 1951 case called Champakam Dorairajan, the Supreme Court decided that if there’s a conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSP, Fundamental Rights would be more important. They said that DPSP must align with and be secondary to Fundamental Rights.

However, the court also mentioned that the Parliament could change Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments. So, to make some DPSP practical, Parliament passed the First Amendment Act in 1951, the Fourth Amendment Act in 1955, and the Seventeenth Amendment Act in 1964.

In 1967, a significant shift occurred in the situation after the Supreme Court’s decision in the Golaknath case. The court stated that Parliament is not allowed to remove or reduce any of the Fundamental Rights, considering them sacred. In simpler terms, the court ruled that Fundamental Rights cannot be changed to enforce the DPSP.

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Golaknath Case (1967), the Parliament took action by passing the 24th Amendment Act (1971) and the 25th Amendment Act (1971). The 24th Amendment Act stated that Parliament now had the authority to limit or remove any Fundamental Rights by creating Constitutional Amendment Acts.

The 25th Amendment Act introduced a new Article 31C, which had two main points:

  1. No law aiming to fulfill the socialistic Directive Principles mentioned in Article 39 (b) and (c) would be considered void for going against Fundamental Rights like Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19 (protection of six rights including speech, assembly, movement, etc.), or Article 31 (right to property).
  2. No law with a declaration to implement such policies could be challenged in any court because it doesn’t effectively carry out such a policy.

Distinction Between Fundamental Rights and DPSP

Distinction BetweenFundamental RightsDirective Principles
NatureNegative, prohibiting the StatePositive, requiring the State to do certain things
EnforceabilityJusticiable, legally enforceable by courtsNon-justiciable, not legally enforceable by courts
AimEstablish political democracyEstablish social and economic democracy
SanctionsLegal sanctionsMoral and political sanctions
FocusCourts cannot declare a law violating Directive Principles unconstitutional but can uphold its validity as enacted to fulfill a directivePromote the welfare of the individual, personal, and individualistic
ImplementationAutomatically enforced, no legislation requiredRequire legislation for implementation, not automatically enforced
Court AuthorityCourts can declare a law violating Fundamental Rights unconstitutionalCourts cannot declare a law violating Directive Principles unconstitutional, but can uphold its validity as enacted to fulfill a directive

In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court made important decisions about Article 31C. It declared the second provision of Article 31C unconstitutional and invalid because the court believed that judicial review is a fundamental feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away. However, the first provision of Article 31C was considered constitutional and valid.

Later, the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) expanded the coverage of the first provision of Article 31C. It included any law aiming to implement any Directive Principle, not just those mentioned in Article 39 (b) and (c). This meant that the 42nd Amendment Act gave more importance to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights like those in Articles 14, 19, and 31. However, in the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court ruled this extension as unconstitutional and invalid. Consequently, Directive Principles were once again made subordinate to Fundamental Rights. Yet, Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and Article 19 were accepted as subordinate to the Directive Principles specified in Article 39 (b) and (c).

Additionally, Article 31 (right to property) was abolished by the 44th Amendment Act (1978).

In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court emphasized that the Indian Constitution is built on maintaining a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Both are crucial for the commitment to social progress, like two wheels of a chariot, with neither being less important than the other. Giving absolute priority to one over the other would disrupt the Constitution’s harmony. This balance is a key part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

Currently, Fundamental Rights are considered superior to Directive Principles. However, it doesn’t mean that Directive Principles cannot be put into action. The Parliament can modify Fundamental Rights to implement Directive Principles, as long as the changes do not harm or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.

Implementation of DPSP

Since 1950, the governments at the national and state levels have created many laws and programs to put the Directive Principles into action. Here are some examples:

  1. Planning Commission: In 1950, the Planning Commission was formed to develop the country in an organized way. Over the years, successive Five Year Plans aimed at achieving social and economic justice while reducing inequalities in income, status, and opportunities. In 2015, the Planning Commission was replaced by a new body called NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India).
  2. Land Reform Laws: Almost all states have passed land reform laws to bring about changes in rural society and improve the conditions of people living in the countryside. These measures include:
    • (a) Abolishing intermediaries like zamindars, jagirdars, inamdars, etc.
    • (b) Introducing tenancy reforms such as security of tenure and fair rents.
    • (c) Setting limits on land holdings.
    • (d) Distributing surplus land among landless laborers.
    • (e) Encouraging cooperative farming.
  3. Several laws have been enacted to safeguard the rights and well-being of laborers. Here are some important ones:
    • Minimum Wages Act (1948): Ensures fair payment for labor.
    • Payment of Wages Act (1936): Regulates the payment of wages to workers.
    • Payment of Bonus Act (1965): Deals with bonuses for workers.
    • Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act (1970): Regulates contract labor.
    • Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act (1986): Prohibits and regulates child labor.
    • Bonded Labour System Abolition Act (1976): Abolishes bonded labor.
    • Trade Unions Act (1926): Governs the formation and activities of trade unions.
    • Factories Act (1948): Ensures health, safety, and welfare of factory workers.
    • Mines Act (1952): Regulates labor conditions in mines.
    • Industrial Disputes Act (1947): Addresses disputes between employers and workers.
    • Workmen’s Compensation Act (1923): Provides compensation for work-related injuries.
    • In 2006, the government banned child labor, and in 2016, the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act (1986) was renamed as the Child and Adolescent Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986.
  4. Additionally:
  5. Maternity Benefit Act (1961): Protects the interests of women workers during maternity.
  6. Equal Remuneration Act (1976): Ensures equal pay for men and women doing similar work.
  7. Various steps have been taken to utilize financial resources for the common good, including nationalization of life insurance (1956), nationalization of fourteen leading commercial banks (1969), nationalization of general insurance (1971), abolition of Privy Purses (1971), and more.
  8. The Legal Services Authorities Act (1987) established a nationwide network to offer free and competent legal aid to the poor and organize lok adalats for promoting equal justice. Lok adalat serves as a statutory forum for conciliatory settlement of legal disputes. It holds the status of a civil court, and its awards are enforceable, binding on the parties, and final with no appeal available before any other court.
  9. Various boards such as the Khadi and Village Industries Board, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Small-Scale Industries Board, National Small Industries Corporation, Handloom Board, Handicrafts Board, Coir Board, Silk Board, etc., have been established to foster the development of cottage industries in rural areas.
  10. Programs like 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 Grameena Rozgar Yojana (2001), National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (2006), and more have been launched to uplift the standard of living.
  11. Acts like the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, aim to safeguard wildlife and forests. The Water and Air Acts established Central and State Pollution Control Boards to protect and improve the environment. The National Forest Policy (1988) focuses on the protection, conservation, and development of forests.
  12. Agriculture has been modernized by providing improved agricultural inputs, seeds, fertilizers, and irrigation facilities. Steps have been taken to organize animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines.
  13. A three-tier panchayati raj system (at village, taluka, and zila levels) has been introduced to realize Gandhi’s dream of every village being a republic. The 73rd Amendment Act (1992) provides constitutional status and protection to these panchayati raj institutions.
  14. Seats are reserved for SCs, STs, and other weaker sections in educational institutions, government services, and representative bodies. Acts like the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, aim to protect SCs and STs from social injustice and exploitation. The 65th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1990 established the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which was later bifurcated into two separate bodies by the 89th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2003, namely, the National Commission for Schedule Castes and National Commission for Schedule Tribes.
  15. Various national-level commissions have been established to promote and protect the social, educational, and economic interests of the weaker sections of society. These include the National Commission for Backward Classes (1993), the National Commission for Minorities (1993), the National Commission for Women (1992), and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (2007).
  16. The Criminal Procedure Code (1973) separated the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the state. Prior to this separation, district authorities like the collector, sub-divisional officer, tehsildar, etc., used to exercise judicial powers along with traditional executive powers. After the separation, judicial powers were taken away from these executive authorities and vested in the hands of district judicial magistrates who work under the direct control of the state high court.
  17. The Ancient and Historical Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (1951) has been enacted to protect monuments, places, and objects of national importance.
  18. Primary health centers and hospitals have been established throughout the country to improve public health. Special programs have been launched to eradicate widespread diseases like malaria, TB, leprosy, AIDS, cancer, filaria, kala-azar, guineaworm, yaws, Japanese encephalitis, and so on.
  19. Laws to prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, and bullocks have been enacted in some states.
  20. Some states have initiated old-age pension schemes for people above 65 years.
  21. India has been following the policy of non-alignment and panchsheel to promote international peace and security.

In spite of the above steps by the Central and state governments, the Directive Principles have not been implemented fully and effectively due to several reasons like inadequate financial resources, unfavorable socio-economic conditions, population explosion, strained Centre-state relations, and so on.

DPSP Outside Part IV

In addition to the Directives listed in Part IV, there are some more Directives in other parts of the Constitution. They include:

  1. Claims of SCs and STs to Services: Members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes should be considered for appointments to services and posts related to the affairs of the Union or a State. This consideration should be in line with maintaining administrative efficiency (Article 335 in Part XVI).
  2. Instruction in Mother Tongue: Every state and local authority within the state should make an effort to provide sufficient facilities for teaching in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education for children belonging to linguistic minority groups (Article 350-A in Part XVII).
  3. Development of the Hindi Language: The Union must promote the spread and development of the Hindi language. The goal is for Hindi to be a medium of expression for all elements of India’s diverse culture (Article 351 in Part XVII).

Similar to the Directives in Part IV, these directives are also non-justiciable. However, the judiciary gives them equal importance and attention because it believes that all parts of the Constitution must be read together.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Directive Principles of State Policy

1. What are Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in the Indian Constitution?

Answer: The DPSP, outlined in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51), are guiding ideals for the government when formulating policies and laws. They cover economic, social, and political aspects, aiming to achieve justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity as stated in the Preamble.

2. Why were the DPSP included in the Indian Constitution?

Answer: Inspired by the Irish Constitution of 1937, the DPSP were considered crucial by Dr. B R Ambedkar and other framers. They act as constitutional instructions for the government, guiding legislative, executive, and administrative functions to embody the essence of the Constitution.

3. How do the DPSP relate to Fundamental Rights?

Answer: Both DPSP and Fundamental Rights, according to Granville Austin, constitute the ‘Conscience of the Constitution.’ While Fundamental Rights focus on individual liberties, DPSP guide the government in ensuring socio-economic justice and welfare, embodying the philosophy of a ‘welfare state.’

4. Can the courts enforce the DPSP?

Answer: No, the DPSP are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be legally enforced by the courts. However, the Constitution emphasizes their fundamental role in governance (Article 37), and if a law aligns with a DPSP, the court may consider it ‘reasonable’ under Articles 14 or 19, saving it from being deemed unconstitutional.

5. How are the DPSP classified?

Answer: Though not explicitly categorized, DPSP can be broadly grouped into socialistic, Gandhian, and liberal-intellectual principles. Socialistic principles focus on economic and social justice, Gandhian principles align with Gandhi’s ideals, and liberal-intellectual principles embody a liberal ideology.

6. What was the significance of the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 in relation to DPSP?

Answer: The 42nd Amendment Act introduced four additional DPSPs, emphasizing issues like the healthy development of children and environmental protection. It expanded the scope of the first provision of Article 31C, giving more importance to DPSP over certain Fundamental Rights.

7. Why did the framers of the Constitution make the DPSP non-justiciable?

Answer: The framers took a pragmatic view, considering factors such as limited financial resources, diversity, and the need for flexibility in implementation. They believed in an awakened public opinion as the ultimate sanction for fulfilling these principles.

8. How do the DPSP assist in evaluating the government’s actions?

Answer: Despite being non-justiciable, the DPSP act as a benchmark for evaluating government performance. They offer a framework for citizens and the opposition to assess policies, ensuring that the government aligns with the constitutional principles.

9. What is the conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSP?

Answer: In case of a conflict, Fundamental Rights take precedence over DPSP. However, Parliament can modify Fundamental Rights to implement DPSP, maintaining a balance between the two. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and subsequent amendments clarified this relationship.

10. How have the DPSP been implemented in India?

Answer: Implementation has taken various forms, including land reform laws, labor protection acts, nationalization of sectors, health and education initiatives, and the establishment of panchayati raj institutions. These measures aim to fulfill the socio-economic goals outlined in the DPSP.

For Complete Polity Click Here.

Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE
Follow our Instagram ID HERE

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *