In this article you will learn about the Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy.
Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy
Many critics have been very open in criticising the existence of unenforceable pious declarations in the body of the Indian Constitution as stand incorporated in its Part IV (DPSP). They consider these as ‘superfluous high sounding principles’ with little scope for actual realisation. The directive principles of state policy have faced criticism on several grounds. Some of the key criticisms are as follows :
Main points of Criticism :
Non-Justiciability : One of the primary criticisms of directive principles is that they are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced through legal remedies. Unlike fundamental rights, which are legally enforceable, directive principles are considered mere guidelines for the government. Critics argue that without legal enforceability, directive principles lack teeth and can be easily ignored by the government, rendering them ineffective.
Lack of Legal Force : The critics hold that as unenforceable directives because these principles do not carry any weight. Their violation or non-realisation cannot be challenged in any court.
Mere Declaration : The Directive Principles are mere declaration of intentions or instruments of instructions which are to be observed and secured by the State at will. The Constitution neither makes them justiciable nor fixes the time limit within which these are to be secured. The legislature is to secure these as and when it may be possible for it.
Conflict with Fundamental Rights : There have been instances where the implementation of directive principles has come into conflict with fundamental rights. Critics argue that in such cases, the government may prioritise directive principles over fundamental rights, leading to a violation of individual liberties. Balancing the two can be a complex task, and critics assert that fundamental rights should always take precedence over directive principles to protect individual freedoms.
Unsystematic Enumeration : Another point of criticism against the Directive Principles has been that these have been neither systematically stated nor properly classified. These appear to be a collection of pious declarations recorded in the Indian Constitution.
Vagueness and Lack of Clarity : Directive principles are often criticised for their vague and general language. The principles are broadly worded and lack specific details and actionable steps. Critics argue that this vagueness leaves room for interpretation and allows the government to evade accountability. The absence of concrete guidelines can lead to inconsistent implementation and ineffective policymaking.
Limited Enforceability : Even though some directive principles have been given legal backing through subsequent legislation, their enforcement remains limited. Critics contend that the lack of effective mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of directive principles undermines their significance. Without robust mechanisms in place, the government may not prioritise the achievement of directive principles, leading to a gap between aspirations and actual outcomes.
Reactionary in Nature : Many critics hold that various principles lay down as Directive Principles of State Policy are reactionary in nature. Written during 1947-49 several of the Directives appear to be reactionary in contemporary times. The party in power at a particular time can use some of the directives for political and selfish ends. Moreover enumeration of these principles involves an attempt to unduly bind the present with the past.
On the basis of these arguments the critics severely criticise the existence, concept and nature of Part IV of the Constitution.
This article on Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. If you like LawStudyPoint.com do follow us on our Twitter handle.