1

DAILY
CLASS NOTES
Indian Polity

Lecture – 22
Directive Principles
of State Policy
 2

Directive Principles of State Policy

Directive Principles of State Policy:
 The Directive Principles of State Policy are directions to the state while formulating policies, enacting laws
and legislating.
 The Directive Principles of State Policy have been borrowed from the Constitution of Ireland.
 They epitomize the ideals of people.
 They have evolved along with the constitutional form of government.
 The Directive Principles seek to establish a welfare state as opposed to Laissez-faire/regulatory state.
 Regulatory state: It performs only one function which is the maintenance of law and order, carrying
out day-to-day administration of the country.
 It leaves the economic development of the people to the individual themselves.
 On the other hand, the welfare state performs a dual function that is as a regulatory state and actively
participates in the economic development of the pe ople.
 Therefore the welfare state is inherently more dynamic than the regulatory state.
 The Directive Principles are in the nature of general direction or instruction to the state.
 Directive Principles are a unique blend:
 Socialism
 Gandhism
 Western Liberalism
 The freedom struggle of India
 They embody the aims which the state must bear in mind while formulating policies and making laws.
 They seek to provide methods to empower the people.
 They constitute a very comprehensive social, economic and administration programme for a modern
democratic state.
 However they are non-justiciable in nature, that is they cannot be enforced in a court of law. They will
be enforceable only when they are included in the policy formulated by laws enacted by the state.
Why are Directive Principles non-justiciable in a court of law?
The Directive Principles of State Policy are non-justiciable in nature because of the following reasons:
 At the time the Constitution came into force India lacked material resources to implement some of the
Directive Principles of State Policy like free and compulsory education because free and compulsory
education requires tremendous material resources to be implemented that is why India decided to keep
this provision under Directive Principles.
 3

NOTE:
 Even Though it is non-justiciable in nature , the constitution of India says under Article 37 it is
fundamental in the governance of the country.

Importance of Directive Principles:

 The Directive Principles are fundamentals in the governance of the country because their implementation is
essential for the establishment of a welfare state in the country.
 They have not been given legal enforceability not because they are inferior to any part of the constitution,
but because of the fact that implementation demands material resources at the disposal of the state.
 As Dr. B.R Ambedkar observed that any responsible government will have to implement Directive Principles
Otherwise it will be answerable to the people in the next election.
 According to Dr. B.R Ambedkar they may not be enforceable in the court of law but they are
enforceable in the court of people.
 Directive Principles may lack legal sanctions but they enjoy the political sanctions.
 They are the testing ground on which the performance of the government of the day is judged.
 They are also useful in determining the constitutional validity of certain laws.
 Further they act as the lighthouse, constantly reminding the government of its responsibility in taking the
country towards the welfare goal.
 As the former chief justice of India Justice H. J Kania observed that the Directive Principles did not merely
represent the majority of the constituent assembly but it represented the collective wisdom ofthe people
of India as reflected through the constituent assembly.
Difference between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:

Fundamental Rights Directive Principles

These are justiciable in the court of law under They are non-justiciable in the court of law.
Article 32 in the Supre me Court and under
Article 226 in the High Court.

These are static in nature : Where they seek to These are dynamic in nature: Where the urge to state
represent a set of rights and preserve a set of rights to perform something positive in the form of benefits
enjoyed by the individual. to the people.

Fundamental Rights are a negative obligation of a Directive Principles are a positive affirmation of a
state. state.
 4

The Fundamental Rights seek to establish political Directive Principles seek to establish social and
democracy in the country. economic democracy in the country.

These are provided in a strict legal sense. These are provided in a general sense.

Relationship between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:

 Article 37 states that the Directive Principles are not enforceable in a court of law. Nevertheless, they are
fundamental in the governance of the country.
 It is the duty of the state to incorporate the Directive Principles in the policies formulated and the laws enacted
in order to promote the welfare concept but the supreme court in the Champakam Dorairajan vs State of
Madras case 1951, held that the Directive Principles cannot override the fundamental Rights.
 Directive Principles have to confirm and run as a subsidiary of the Fundame ntal rights.
 In the case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, the Fundamental Rights
will prevail. The Supreme Court held that the Directive Principles were inferior to the Fundamental
Rights.
 The decision of the Supreme Court came in the way of enacting social legislation such as the Zamindari
Abolition Act and the Land Reforms Acts.
 The Supreme Court subsequently realized the importance of the Directive Principles and propounded the
Kerala Education Bill Case of 1957.
 The theory of harmonization observed that Directive Principles cannot override Fundamental Rights.
 Nevertheless, in determining the scope and armpit of the Fundamental Rights the court may not
completely ignore the Directive Principles and the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights shall be
harmoniously constructed and the court must attempt to give effect to both the Directive Principles and
Fundamental Rights as much as possible.
 Under the theory of harmonization the court held that there is no inherent conflict between the Directive
Principles and Fundamental Rights and they supplement each other in establishing po litical, social and
economic democracy.
 In view of this the court has the responsibility to interpret the constitution in such a way to the social objective
held out by the Directive Principles, with the individual rights guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights.
 This is the mandate of the Constitution not only to the legislature and the executive but also to the court.
Therefore the provision in Part III should be interpreted having regard to the Directive Principles.
 The Directive Principles are also relevant to consider what are reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights.
However, if only one interpretation is possible which leads to a conflict between the Fundamental Rights and
the Directive Principles, the court has no choice but to give effect to the Fundamental Rights in preference
to the Directive Principles.
 5

 On the basis of the whole interpretation the Supreme Court held the bank nation allegation Act- 1971, as
unconstitutional and void which were passed to give effect to Article 39 (b) and 39 (c) as unconstitutional
and void as they violated Article 14, 19 and 13.
 The parliament responded by enacting the 25th Amendment Act 1971 which introduced a new article,
namely Article 31 (c) in the constitution.
 It read if the state enacts a law to give effects to the directive given under Article 39 (b) and 39 (c) and
in the directive given under Article 14, 19 and 31 the law shall not be declared unconstitutional and
void merely on this ground.
 The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case upheld the constitutional validity of the 25th
Amendment Act and on the basis of this, the court subsequently declared the Bank Nationalization Act
and the Privy Purse (abolition) Act as Constitutionally void.
 The 42nd Amendment Act 1976 among other things amended Article 31 (c) which in amended form read
that if the state enacts the law to give effect to any of the Directive Principles and in the process if the law
violated Article 14, 19 and 31, the law shall not be declared as unconstitutional and void merely on the
grounds of Article 31 (c). Further stated that any such law declaring that it is to give effect to the Directive
Principles shall not be questioned in a court of law.
 The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act 1978 renamed Article 31 from the set of fundamental rights and
made it a right under Article 300 (A).
 The changes introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976 in Article 31 (c) was held to be unconstitutional
and void in Minerva mills case on the grounds that it violated the court's power of judicial review and disturb
the balance between Part III and Part IV and which are the parts of the basic structure of the
Constitution.
 Thus the present position in terms of the relation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is that
the two directions given under Article 39 (b) and 39 (c) can prevail over the Fundamental Rights given
under Article 14 and 19.








