Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy

Introduction:

This article will focus on the Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy along with its significance. The criticism, or derailment, can be seen as a setback in the process of securing Fundamental Rights. This failure, that is the derailment has caused major problems in India’s march towards becoming a constitutional democracy.  The critique may have serious political and social ramifications if not dealt with promptly; it needs to be addressed before more damage is done.

What are Directive Principles of State Policy?

As per Article 37 of the Constitution of India, these principles are guidelines for State Policy. They were intended to supplement the Fundamental Rights and were not intended to add to them or take away from them. The significance of Directive Principles is, it specifies the duties and responsibilities of the state and its citizens. Directive Principles indicate what kind of society we want in India; where citizens are empowered and given equal opportunities to grow economically, socially, and educationally .

Features of Directive Principles of State Policy:

1) The government has a duty to:

1. Protect and improve the conditions of the people, particularly those engaged in economic activity; and
2. Maintain national security and public order.

2) There will be a positive role for business in society, safeguarding the welfare of workers, ensuring that they are fairly treated.

3) The state will have an obligation to see that there is a balance between economic development, employment and protection of the environment and that it has to facilitate social justice so as to achieve these goals.

4) Directives for State Policy are also about States acting within their boundaries, within their jurisdiction and jurisdiction only as provided by law.  In other words, its states authority ends at its borders. If a state engages in activity which is outside its boundaries, it will be considered an intervention from foreign countries.

Criticism of Directive Principles:

1) Criticisms of the Directive Principles are that they are principles that must be ignored. There is little to no accountability and no consequences when the government fails to uphold these principles. The government can simply deflect blame and declare success in this area.  This will translate into less responsibility and accountability by the State regarding their duties and responsibilities under the Constitution of India.  This could lead to a weakening of our democracy, leaving us vulnerable to external and internal threats.

2) There is lack of clarity on what rights the people have under Clause (1) (a), (b). The Directive Principles of State Policy suggest what the government should do, but there is no clear definition of rights. The implications are that there will be greater restrictions on individuals and their rights.

3) It will become increasingly difficult for the states to implement the Directive Principles since they are not considered to be Fundamental Rights by courts.

4) With regards to (1), (b) this is because there are no consequences when governments fail to uphold these principles. There is no sense of accountability or expectations from them; and this will lead to more structural problems than before. The government can simply avoid responsibility and blame it on foreign countries or other issues  beyond its control which leads to a weakening of democracy in India’s continued development.

Difference between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:

1) The difference between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is the scope of these rights.  Fundamental Rights are given to citizens by the Constitution, in order to ensure that they are not infringed upon by the government or other private individuals.  This is because they have an equality clause (Article 14) and a legal enforcement system (Article 32).

2) While Directive Principles are not given to citizens as individual rights, but rather to the society as a whole. These principles are for the growth and development of society as a whole. They look towards having equal opportunities for growth in all fields so that there is no social inequality or social injustice based on caste, creed or gender. They are also to ensure that there is a minimum standard of living for the citizens of India.

3) For instance Dharma, while not a Fundamental Right, is a critical aspect of Indian society. Society cannot function without respecting and honoring one another’s Dharma/religion. The Directive Principles then attempt to give society guidelines on how to do this.

4) Fundamental Rights, unlike the Directive Principles, have legal enforcement systems provided in the Indian Constitution (Articles 32 and 226).  This legal enforcement system allows affected individuals or groups who feel that their rights have been infringed upon by private or government entities to sue in court for redressal of their grievances.

Conclusion:

The Directive Principles of State Policy are distinct from the Fundamental Rights. The Fundamental Rights are enshrined in the Constitution of India and are referred to as enforceable fundamental rights, while the Directive Principles do not have legal enforcement systems within the Indian Constitution. The Directive Principles can be considered as the constitution’s soul and spirit. These principles were intended to supplement the Fundamental Rights and were not intended to add to them or take away from them.  However, it has been seen that they have been ignored by successive governments in pursuit of political gains. This is dangerous since it could lead to a weakening of democracy in India.