Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) – Judicial Enforceability and Constitutional Balance
- The Legal Watch
- Jul 3
- 2 min read
Introduction
The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in Part IV (Articles 36-51) of the Indian Constitution are guidelines for the government to establish a just and welfare-oriented society. Unlike Fundamental Rights (FRs), DPSPs are not legally enforceable—meaning citizens cannot directly approach courts to demand their implementation. However, through judicial interpretation, they have gained indirect enforceability, shaping key policies and laws.
This blog explores the evolving judicial approach to DPSPs and their impact on governance.
DPSPs vs. Fundamental Rights: A Constitutional Dichotomy
Feature | Fundamental Rights (FRs) | Directive Principles (DPSPs) |
Enforceability | Enforceable by courts (Article 32) | Non-enforceable (Article 37) |
Nature | Negative obligations (restrain state) | Positive obligations (state must strive to fulfill) |
Purpose | Protect individual liberty | Promote social & economic justice |
Conflict? Initially, courts gave primacy to FRs over DPSPs (e.g., Champakam Dorairajan Case, 1951). Later, amendments and judgments harmonized them.
Judicial Evolution: From Non-Justiciability to Indirect Enforcement
1. Early Phase – Strict Separation (1950s-1960s)
Courts held that DPSPs cannot override FRs.
Example: In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), caste-based reservations were struck down for violating FRs (Article 15), despite DPSP goals.
Result: Parliament amended the Constitution (First Amendment, 1951) to allow reservations under Article 15(4).
2. Balancing Phase – Harmonizing FRs & DPSPs (1970s-1980s)
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Introduced the "Basic Structure Doctrine", ensuring DPSPs don’t destroy FRs.
Minerva Mills Case (1980): Declared that FRs and DPSPs are complementary—neither has absolute primacy.
3. Progressive Phase – DPSPs as Interpretative Tools (1990s-Present)
Courts now use DPSPs to:
Expand FRs (e.g., Right to Education [Article 21A], Right to Livelihood).
Guide policymaking (e.g., environmental protection, labor rights).
Landmark Cases:
Unni Krishnan v. State of AP (1993): Recognized Right to Education (Article 45).
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Used Article 51A(e) (DPSP) to frame sexual harassment guidelines.
Key Areas Where DPSPs Influenced Law & Policy
Right to Work & Livelihood
MNREGA (2005) – Fulfills Article 41 (right to work).
Environmental Protection
Article 48A (environment) led to forest conservation laws and climate policies.
Uniform Civil Code
Article 44 remains aspirational but influences debates on gender justice.
Healthcare & Nutrition
National Health Mission aligns with Article 47 (public health).
Should DPSPs Be Made Enforceable?
Arguments For:
Ensures accountability in welfare governance.
Reduces gap between constitutional ideals and implementation.
Arguments Against:
Financial constraints – Many DPSPs require massive state resources.
Judicial overreach – Courts may end up dictating policy.
Current Trend: Courts avoid direct enforcement but use DPSPs to interpret laws expansively.
Conclusion: DPSPs as a Moral Compass for Governance
While DPSPs lack direct enforceability, their indirect judicial recognition has shaped India’s socio-legal landscape. By harmonizing them with FRs, courts ensure that governance remains rights-based yet welfare-oriented. The challenge lies in political will—ensuring legislatures and executives prioritize DPSP goals without judicial compulsion.
Do you think DPSPs should be made legally enforceable? Or should they remain guiding principles? Share your views!
Comments