Criticism of the Directive Principles

The Directive Principles of State Policy have been criticised by some members of the Constituent Assembly as well as other constitutional and political experts on the following grounds:

1. No Legal Force

The Directives have been criticised mainly because of their non-justiciable character. While K T Shah dubbed them as ‘pious superfluities’ and compared them with ‘a cheque on a bank, payable only when the resources of the bank permit’, Nasiruddin contended that these principles are ‘no better than the new year’s resolutions, which are broken on the second of January’. Even as T T Krishnamachari described the Directives as ‘a veritable dustbin of sentiments’, K C wheare called them as a ‘manifesto of aims and aspirations’ and opined that they serve as mere ‘moral homily’, and Sir Ivor Jennings thought they are only as ‘piousaspirations’.

           2. Illogically ArrangedCritics opine that the Directives are not arranged in a logical manner based on a consistent philosophy. According to N Srinivasan, ‘the Directives are neither properly classified nor logically arranged. The declaration mixes up relatively unimportant issues with the most vital economic and social questions. It combines rather incongruously the modern with the old and provisions suggested by the reason and science with provisions based purely on sentiment and prejudice’. Sir Ivor Jennings too pointed out that these principles have no consistent philosophy.

       3. ConservativeAccording to Sir Ivor Jennings, the Directives are based on the political philosophy of the 19th century England. He remarked: ‘The ghosts of Sydney Webb and Beatrice Webb stalk through the pages of the text. Part IV of the Constitution expresses Fabian Socialism without the socialism’. He opined that the Directives ‘are deemed to be suitable in India in the middle of the twentieth century. The question whether they are suitable for the twenty-first century cannot be answered; but it is quite probable that they will be entirely out moded.’
​
         4. Constitutional ConflictK Santhanam has pointed out that the Directives lead to a constitutional conflict (a) between the Centre and the states, (b) between the President and the Prime Minister, and(c) between the governor and the chief minister. According to him, the Centre can give directions to the states with regard to the implementation of these principles, and in case of non-compliance, can dismiss the state government. Similarly, when the Prime Minister gets a bill ​(which violates the Directive Principles) passed by the Parliament, the president may reject the bill on the ground that these principles are fundamental to the governance of the country and hence, the ministry has no right to ignore them. The same constitutional conflict may occur between the governor and the chief minister at the state level.