Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines in Part IV of the Constitution that the State should keep in mind while framing laws and policies. They aim at setting up a welfare state with social and economic justice.

Not enforceable, but fundamental

Article 37 is the key. The Directive Principles are not enforceable by any court, yet they are declared fundamental in the governance of the country. The State has a moral and political duty to apply them, even though a citizen cannot sue to enforce them. This is the single most tested idea about DPSP.

A few principles worth remembering

• Uniform Civil Code for citizens (Article 44)
• Organisation of village panchayats (Article 40)
• Equal pay for equal work (Article 39)
• Protection of environment and wildlife (Article 48A)
• Separation of judiciary from executive (Article 50)
• Promotion of cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in rural areas (Article 43)
• Promotion of international peace and security (Article 51), the only DPSP dealing with foreign policy

Where the DPSP came from

The concept is borrowed from the Irish Constitution, which in turn borrowed it from Spain. The idea: political democracy (Fundamental Rights) is not enough without social and economic democracy, so the Constitution-makers wrote the DPSP as a set of positive obligations for the State, a "manifesto" for governance, in Dr. Ambedkar's words, while deliberately keeping it non-justiciable so newly independent India's limited resources would not tie the State up in endless litigation over welfare promises.

DPSP vs Fundamental Rights

When the two clash

Early on, courts held Fundamental Rights supreme whenever they conflicted with DPSP. That shifted over time:

• Champakam Dorairajan (1951). Fundamental Rights prevail over DPSP; triggered the First Amendment.
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights to implement DPSP, but cannot touch the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
• Minerva Mills (1980), struck down a clause giving DPSP absolute priority over Fundamental Rights; held that the harmony and balance between the two is itself part of the Basic Structure, neither can be given absolute primacy over the other.

The current settled position: Fundamental Rights and DPSP are complementary, and courts read them together wherever possible rather than picking a permanent winner.