Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) 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. Article 36 fixes what "the State" means for this Part: the same wide meaning as in Part III (Fundamental Rights), covering the Union and State governments, Parliament and State legislatures, and all local and other authorities.

This chapter's material overlaps with NCERT Class 11, Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 2 (Rights in the Indian Constitution), which introduces DPSP alongside Fundamental Rights. This note goes further than that chapter's coverage.

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.

Three families of principles

Laxmikanth groups the individual DPSP articles into three broad categories, and knowing which family an article belongs to helps with matching questions:

• Gandhian principles: reflect Gandhian ideas of decentralisation and self-reliance, e.g. organisation of village panchayats (Article 40), promotion of cottage industries (Article 43), prohibition of intoxicating drinks (Article 47).
• Socialist principles: aim at social and economic equality, e.g. equal pay for equal work (Article 39), the right to work and public assistance (Article 41), securing a living wage (Article 43).
• Liberal-intellectual principles: reflect broader liberal ideals, e.g. Uniform Civil Code (Article 44), early childhood care and education (Article 45), scientific approach to agriculture (Article 48), and international peace and security (Article 51), the only DPSP dealing with foreign policy.

Every DPSP article, one by one

This is the part worth learning by number, since UPSC statement-based questions test the article directly, not just the theme.

• Article 38: has two clauses. Clause (1) directs the State to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which justice (social, economic, political) informs all institutions of national life. Clause (2), added by the 44th Amendment (1978), specifically directs the State to minimise inequalities in income and to endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only among individuals but among groups of people in different areas or different vocations.
• Article 39: lists six sub-clauses the State must direct its policy towards. Worth learning individually, since UPSC often asks "which of the following is NOT part of Article 39":
  • (a) citizens, men and women equally, have an adequate means of livelihood.
  • (b) ownership and control of the material resources of the community are distributed as best to subserve the common good.
  • (c) the economic system does not result in concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
  • (d) equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
  • (e) the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused, and citizens are not forced by economic necessity into work unsuited to their age or strength.
  • (f) children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner, in conditions of freedom and dignity, and childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
• Article 39A: equal justice and free legal aid, so that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disability. Added by the 42nd Amendment.
• Article 40: organisation of village panchayats, endowed with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.
• Article 41: right to work, to education, and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want, all within the limits of the State's economic capacity and development.
• Article 42: just and humane conditions of work, and maternity relief.
• Article 43: a living wage, a decent standard of life, and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities for all workers (agricultural, industrial or otherwise); and, in particular, the promotion of cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in rural areas.
• Article 43A: workers' participation in the management of industries. Added by the 42nd Amendment.
• Article 43B: promotion of cooperative societies, meaning their voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management. Added by the 97th Amendment (2011), more on which below.
• Article 44: a Uniform Civil Code for citizens throughout the territory of India.
• Article 45: today, early childhood care and education for children until they complete the age of six. This was substituted by the 86th Amendment (2002), more on which below.
• Article 46: promotion of the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections, and their protection from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
• Article 47: raising the level of nutrition and the standard of living, and improving public health, as among the State's primary duties; and, in particular, an endeavour to prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks and of drugs injurious to health, except for medicinal purposes.
• Article 48: organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines; in particular, steps to preserve and improve breeds, and to prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle.
• Article 48A: protection and improvement of the environment, and safeguarding of forests and wildlife. Added by the 42nd Amendment.
• Article 49: protection of every monument, place or object of artistic or historic interest and of national importance from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export.
• Article 50: separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
• Article 51: promotion of international peace and security, the only DPSP concerned with foreign policy, with four limbs: (a) promote international peace and security, (b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations, (c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations, (d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

The 42nd Amendment additions (1976)

The 42nd Amendment added new Directive Principles to strengthen the social and economic justice mandate, three worth remembering by number:

• Article 39A: free legal aid to the poor.
• Article 43A: workers' participation in the management of industries.
• Article 48A: protection and improvement of the environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife.

These three are a common "which Article was added by which amendment" question, since they are easy to confuse with the original 1950 DPSP list.

Article 45's journey: from a Directive Principle to a Fundamental Right

This is one of the most frequently tested DPSP-to-FR "promotions", and the detail matters.

The original 1950 Article 45 read: the State shall endeavour to provide, within ten years of the commencement of the Constitution, free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years. That ten-year deadline came and went without the goal being met.

The Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002 changed this in three linked moves, all commencing together on 1 April 2010 (the same day the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came into force), even though the amendment itself received presidential assent back in December 2002:

• Its Section 2 inserted a brand new Article 21A right after Article 21 (Right to Life), in Part III: "The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine." This is what actually made free and compulsory education for ages 6 to 14 a Fundamental Right, enforceable in court, for the first time moving this guarantee out of the non-justiciable DPSP list and into Part III.
• Its Section 3 substituted the old Article 45 with new text: "The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years." So Article 45 did not disappear, its subject changed: it now covers early childhood care below six, not the 6-to-14 mandate, which lives at Article 21A.
• Its Section 4 added a new clause (k) to Article 51A (Fundamental Duties): it is now the duty of every parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to their child or ward between the ages of six and fourteen.

The exam trap: a question naming "Article 45" today is testing early childhood care for under-sixes, not the right to education, which is Article 21A. Confusing the two is the single most common mistake on this topic.

The 97th Amendment: Article 43B and cooperative societies (2011)

The Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 (assented to in January 2012, commencing 15 February 2012) did three things:

• Amended Article 19(1)(c) in Part III to add "cooperative societies" alongside unions and associations, making the right to form a cooperative society a Fundamental Right.
• Inserted Article 43B into Part IV as a new Directive Principle: the State shall endeavour to promote the voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of cooperative societies.
• Inserted an entirely new Part IXB, "The Cooperative Societies" (Articles 243ZH to 243ZT), laying down detailed provisions on incorporation, board composition, elections, audit and offences for cooperative societies, on the model of the Panchayati Raj (Part IX) and Municipalities (Part IXA) provisions.

Article 43B is a real, checkable, single-line addition and a clean "which amendment added which article" fact for Prelims.

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: the sequence UPSC tests

Early on, courts held Fundamental Rights supreme whenever they conflicted with DPSP. That shifted over time, and the sequence itself is what gets tested:

• 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): the precise story is worth knowing at the section level, since it is a favourite trap. Article 31C had originally been inserted (by the 25th Amendment, 1971) to protect only laws implementing Article 39(b) and 39(c) from being struck down for violating Articles 14 or 19. Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 widened Article 31C to protect laws implementing any Directive Principle in Part IV, effectively giving all of DPSP primacy over Articles 14 and 19. In Minerva Mills v Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down this Section 4 (along with Section 55 of the same Act, which had tried to place constitutional amendments entirely beyond judicial review by inserting clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368) as exceeding Parliament's amending power. Article 31C survived, but only in its narrower, pre-1976 form, protecting laws under Article 39(b) and 39(c) alone. Chief Justice Chandrachud held that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is itself part of the Basic Structure, so neither Part III nor Part IV can be given absolute primacy over the other, famously describing them as "two wheels of a chariot, one no less important than 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.

2024: the Supreme Court revisits Article 39(b)

On 5 November 2024, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decided Property Owners Association & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors (2024 INSC 835), the largest bench to examine a DPSP question since Kesavananda Bharati. The case arose from a 1991 challenge by a Mumbai landowners' association to 1986 amendments to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, which let a state housing board acquire dilapidated "cessed" buildings for repair and reconstruction.

The referred question: does "material resources of the community" in Article 39(b) include privately owned resources? The majority opinion, authored by then Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, held that the phrase can theoretically include some privately owned resources, but not all private property automatically qualifies. A resource must satisfy two qualifiers, being "material" and being "of the community", and whether it does so is a case-by-case inquiry guided by four non-exhaustive factors: the nature of the resource, its impact on community well-being, its scarcity, and the consequences of its being concentrated in private hands. Examples the Court gave of privately held resources that could still count as "of the community": forests, ponds, wetlands, and scarce natural resources like spectrum, mines and minerals. An ordinary private flat or business, by contrast, would not.

In reaching this, the Court overruled the broad reading in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (1983), which had held that essentially all private property could be redistributed under Article 39(b). The Court found that Sanjeev Coke had wrongly relied on Justice Krishna Iyer's minority opinion in State of Karnataka v Ranganatha Reddy (1977), since the majority in Ranganatha Reddy had expressly distanced itself from that broad view. It also held that a single-sentence observation to the same broad effect in Mafatlal Industries (1997) was not part of that judgment's binding ratio. Article 31C, as narrowed by Minerva Mills and upheld to that extent in Kesavananda Bharati, remains in force. Two judges dissented from the majority's narrower reading.

The exam angle

Two patterns dominate DPSP questions: matching an article to its number or its family, and tracing the FR-DPSP relationship through the case sequence. A newer third pattern is emerging: linking a DPSP article to the amendment that added or changed it (86th Amendment and Article 21A/45, 97th Amendment and Article 43B, 44th Amendment and Article 38(2), 42nd Amendment and Articles 39A/43A/48A). Treat "which amendment inserted this article, and when did it commence" as its own fact to memorise, not an afterthought to the article's content.

Quick revision points

• Article 37: DPSP are non-justiciable but fundamental in governance.
• Three families: Gandhian (Art 40, 43, 43B, 47, 48), Socialist (Art 38, 39, 41, 42, 43), Liberal-intellectual (Art 44, 45, 48, 50, 51).
• Article 39 has six sub-clauses, (a) to (f); know them individually, not just "equal pay" and "livelihood".
• 42nd Amendment (1976) added Articles 39A, 43A, 48A.
• 86th Amendment (2002, in force from 1-4-2010): inserted Article 21A (free/compulsory education, 6-14, now a Fundamental Right), rewrote Article 45 (now early childhood care, under-6), and added Article 51A(k).
• 97th Amendment (2011, in force from 15-2-2012): inserted Article 43B (cooperative societies) and Part IXB.
• Concept borrowed from the Irish Constitution.
• Case sequence: Champakam Dorairajan (1951) leads to Kesavananda Bharati (1973) leads to Minerva Mills (1980), which struck down Section 4 (and Section 55) of the 42nd Amendment, restoring Article 31C to its narrower, Article 39(b)/(c)-only form.
• Property Owners Association v State of Maharashtra (2024): a 9-judge bench held "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) can include some privately owned resources, but not automatically all private property, overruling the broader Sanjeev Coke (1983) reading.

Once the article numbers and case sequence are clear, practise the statement-based questions UPSC builds around them.