Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy

The Directive Principles of State Policy is the title given to certain principles set out by the Constitution of India. They are a part of the balanced structure of the Constitution and are to be read in harmony with’ Fundamental Rights. Jawaharlal Nehru originally introduced the principles  in his speech at the Indian Mountaineering Foundation Day Camp at Nainital on 24 December 1946. On 7 November 1949, they were formally adopted as a part of the Indian Constitution as its “Part IV.”   However, there is no legal force on the state government by the central government. 

Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy 

These principles have aroused considerable criticism and opposition, mainly because of the lack of clarity in their precise limits. They are criticised as being “anachronisms” that have no place in a modern state. The Indian government has made no serious attempt to give any meaning to these principles. The text of these principles itself is vague and subject to various interpretations and applications, creating uncertainty as to what they mean in practice. Let’s talk about some features of directive principles of state policy, which the state government criticises. These are:

• Reactionary in Nature
• Illogically Arranged

• The constitutional conflict between centre and state

• No Enforcement power
• Lack of Clarity
• No legal force 

Reactionary in Nature

Most state governments had criticised these policies as having a reactionary nature. Although, they have alleged that the political person in power can use these directive principles for his benefit. Along with this, the process of enumeration of these principles needed unnecessary binding of the present policies with the past. It makes the principles very complicated and hard to understand, making the implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy very difficult.

No legal force:

The Directive Principles are not laws and therefore have no legal force. They are supposed to provide guiding principles for the legislators. However, the government can use them as a tool to interpret laws to gain the support of the public. So, when it comes to implementing Directive Principles of State Policy, there is no legal force that can enforce or ensure their proper implementation and functioning.

No enforcement power: 

The Constitution authorises nobody or authority to enforce these principles. Though there doesn’t need to be a body to enforce these principles, it would have been useful if there was a provision in place to do so.

illogically arranged: 

The directives have been arranged in an illogical order and have taken a long time to be formed. Some are broad and all-encompassing, while some are specific and minute. The directives that deal with broad issues have been put in the middle, which is not a good arrangement as it confuses the reader.

The constitutional conflict between centre and state: 

Some people think that these principles are not compatible with a federal system of government where the centre has the final decision powers. The state has no control over its policies, laws, and other essential and fundamental state items. The Centre has full control over all aspects of life in this country and even over Constitution itself. So principles cannot be applied to check any part of state policy or law-making by the state.

Thus, directive principles also result in conflicts between:

• Centre and state government 

• Prime Minister and President of India 

• The chief minister and state government of India 

The Central Government provides instructions to the state government regarding implementing principles. But in case of non-compliance, the state government cancelled this implementation, resulting in a constitutional conflict between the centre and state government. 

Lack of clarity: 

These principles are often criticised for being very vague and open to interpretation, leading to widely different meanings and interpretations. They are difficult to interpret and cause confusion among different constitutional jurists and the general public. The Indian courts have tried to apply the directive principles in specific cases, but it is difficult to ascertain what problems they should address. The principles themselves have been interpreted differently by different courts in India, leading to huge confusion among the people and in policymaking.

Conclusion 

The Directive Principles were included in the Constitution as they were considered necessary to achieve the goal of a welfare state – these are moral precepts, not legal requirements. The critics have also suggested that it is not an arduous task for the courts to interpret the vague Directive Principles more precisely and provide them with a workable meaning in practice.

Even centre and state governments had designed or managed no legal force to ensure their implementation. The Directive Principles are undefined and hard to justify in nature, and that’s the reason behind criticism of principles of state policy.