Implementation of Directive Principles and Amendments to Part IV

DPSP implementation amendments trace the story of how a chapter the Constitution itself declares non-justiciable has still ended up shaping law, judicial interpretation and constitutional text over the decades. Since Article 37 rules out direct enforcement of the Directive Principles in court, whatever influence Part IV has actually had on Indian governance has come through three other routes: ordinary legislation, judicial reinterpretation of Fundamental Rights in light of Part IV, and constitutional amendment of Part IV itself.

The Constitutional Design Behind Implementation

Speaking in the Constituent Assembly on 18 November 1949, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described the Constitution as a unitary-cum-federal system that balances a strong Centre against provincial autonomy, with the Centre given wide powers necessary for effective governance while the federal character of the polity is preserved partly through the Fundamental Rights and partly through the Directive Principles. In the same debate, he described the Fundamental Rights as representing, alongside the Directive Principles, the soul of the Constitution, pointing in particular to the removal of untouchability and the establishment of equality through Articles 14 to 18 as major achievements, while noting that rights were deliberately hedged with reasonable restrictions to preserve order. This framing matters for implementation: because Part IV cannot compel action through the courts, giving it effect has always depended on this wider constitutional architecture — an accountable legislature, an active judiciary willing to read Part III in light of Part IV, and the amending power itself.

Judicial Incorporation: Article 45 and the Unni Krishnan Case

The clearest example of a Directive Principle gaining practical force through judicial interpretation is Article 45 on education. In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court held that the right to education is a Fundamental Right flowing directly from the right to life under Article 21 — but only up to the completion of fourteen years of age; beyond that, the State's obligation depends on its economic capacity and level of development. Crucially, the Court read Article 21 in light of Articles 41, 45 and 46 of Part IV, holding that the State could discharge its obligations either by running its own institutions or by aiding, recognising or affiliating private ones, and that while private unaided professional institutions could charge higher fees than government institutions, such fees could not exceed a prescribed ceiling and commercialisation of education was not permissible. This judgment shows implementation working through the back door: a non-justiciable Directive Principle became practically enforceable once the Court tied it to a Fundamental Right.

Legislative and Constitutional Amendment: Article 45 Itself Changes

Implementation has also worked through direct amendment of Part IV. The original Article 45, aimed at free and compulsory education for children, was later amended so that its text now reads that the State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years. Alongside this change to the Directive Principle, a new Fundamental Duty was inserted under Article 51A, making it the duty of every citizen to provide opportunities for education to their child or ward between the ages of six and fourteen. Read together, the judicial reading of Article 45 into Article 21 and the later amendment of Article 45 itself show two different implementation routes converging on the same subject — education — one through the courts, one through the amending power.

Constitutional Amendment as a Tool: Article 43B

Amendment has also been used to add entirely new Directive Principles rather than merely revise existing ones. The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2011 inserted a new Directive Principle on the promotion of co-operative societies under Article 43B, alongside making the right to form co-operative societies a Fundamental Right and adding an entirely new part of the Constitution devoted to their regulation. This is a useful reminder that Part IV is not a fixed, closed list — Parliament has periodically used its amending power to expand it in response to changing policy priorities.

Where Implementation Has Lagged

Not every Directive Principle has been carried forward with the same energy. Article 44, which directs the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens throughout the territory of India, remains without a corresponding central legislation decades after adoption. Article 47, which directs the State toward the prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs injurious to health, has also seen patchy implementation, with some governments prioritising the revenue such consumption generates over the underlying constitutional principle. These examples illustrate the limits of a chapter that depends entirely on political will rather than judicial compulsion for its execution.

Borrowed Foundations

The overall design that makes this mixed picture possible — enforceable rights sitting alongside non-justiciable principles — is itself a deliberate blend drawn from several constitutional traditions. The framers took the parliamentary form of government and first-past-the-post elections from Britain, the concept of Directive Principles from Ireland, the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity from France, Fundamental Rights and judicial review from the United States, and a quasi-federal form of government from Canada. Part IV's implementation story is, in that sense, a specifically Indian working-out of an idea borrowed from Ireland, adapted through Indian legislation, Indian judicial interpretation and repeated Indian constitutional amendment.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) links Article 21 with Articles 41, 45 and 46 of Part IV — a frequently tested case.
• Article 43B (co-operative societies) was added to Part IV by the 97th Amendment Act, 2011.
• Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code) and Article 47 (prohibition of intoxicants) remain among the least implemented Directive Principles.

Mains

• Discuss how judicial interpretation, ordinary legislation and constitutional amendment have each contributed to implementing the Directive Principles.
• Using Articles 44 and 47 as examples, examine why some Directive Principles remain poorly implemented decades after adoption.

FAQ

Q1. How did the Unni Krishnan case help implement Article 45? The Supreme Court held that the right to education for children up to fourteen years flows from the right to life under Article 21, reading Article 21 in light of Articles 41, 45 and 46 of Part IV — effectively making a non-justiciable Directive Principle practically enforceable.

Q2. Has Article 45 itself been amended? Yes. Its text was changed to focus on early childhood care and education for children until age six, and a corresponding Fundamental Duty was added under Article 51A requiring citizens to provide education to their children between six and fourteen.

Q3. Which amendment added a new Directive Principle on co-operative societies? The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011, inserted Article 43B on the promotion of co-operative societies.

Q4. Which Directive Principles are commonly cited as poorly implemented? Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code) and Article 47 (prohibition of intoxicants) are frequently cited, the latter partly because some governments prioritise excise revenue over the underlying principle.

Quick Revision

• Implementation routes: judicial interpretation, ordinary legislation, constitutional amendment.
• Unni Krishnan (1993): Article 21 + Articles 41, 45, 46 → right to education up to age 14.
• Article 45 later amended to early childhood focus; new Fundamental Duty added under Article 51A.
• Article 43B (co-operative societies) added to Part IV by the 97th Amendment, 2011.
• Article 44 (UCD) and Article 47 (prohibition) illustrate weak implementation.

Sources

• Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) — Supreme Court of India judgment record
• The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 — legislative.gov.in
• Constituent Assembly Debates, 18 November 1949 (remarks of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar) — Constituent Assembly Debates official archive
• The Constitution of India, Articles 44, 45, 47 and 51A — legislative.gov.in

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.