DPSP and Fundamental Duties

Independence gave every Indian a vote, but a vote cannot fill an empty stomach. The makers of the Constitution knew that political freedom alone would not make a fair society, so after the Fundamental Rights (Part III) they added Part IV, a promise of what the State must try to achieve: a country with enough work, fair wages, education, health and justice for everyone. These are the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), found in Articles 36 to 51. Think of Fundamental Rights as the floor below which a citizen cannot be pushed, and DPSP as the ceiling the State is asked to reach for.

Political democracy comes from the Fundamental Rights (vote, speech, equality before law). Social and economic democracy comes from the DPSP (fair wages, health, education, equal opportunity). The aim of Part IV is therefore a welfare state, not a police state. This is why a question such as 'which of these is NOT an aim of the DPSP?' has the answer 'political democracy'.

Granville Austin called the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles together the conscience of the Constitution, because both carry the promise of a social revolution. The Directive Principles are not toothless: Article 37 says they are 'fundamental in the governance of the country' and that it is the duty of the State to apply them in making laws. They cannot be taken to court, but a government that ignores them answers to voters.

The Directive Principles are grouped by the kind of society they try to build. The socialist principles want a fair society: no one should starve, work should pay a living wage, and wealth should not pile up in a few hands. The Gandhian principles want a self-reliant village India: strong panchayats, cottage industries, cooperatives and freedom from intoxication. In this topic we take these two families together, because most of the questions mix them.

Here is a simple picture of Article 39(d). Radhika and her colleague Rahul join the same factory, do the same job with the same skill and the same hours. The Directive Principle says the employer should not pay one of them less merely because she is a woman. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 turned this idea into a law.

Articles 39(b) and 39(c) are the most powerful Directive Principles in the courtroom. Article 31C, inserted by the 25th Amendment (1971), says a law made to give effect to these two cannot be struck down just because it violates Article 14 or Article 19. This is why land reforms, nationalisation of banks (1969) and the abolition of princely privy purses (26th Amendment, 1971) are linked to Article 39(b) and (c). We will study the fight over Article 31C in the topic on Fundamental Rights versus DPSP.

The third family of Directive Principles is called liberal-intellectual because it reflects the thinking of a modern, rational, outward-looking State. It asks for one common civil law for all citizens, early care and education for small children, scientific farming, a clean environment, protected monuments, independent courts and a peaceful foreign policy. These are Articles 44, 45, 48, 48A, 49, 50 and 51. The Article that appears most often in examinations is Article 44, the Uniform Civil Code, so we give it a section of its own.

Article 44 says: 'The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.' A civil code here means the personal laws on marriage, divorce, adoption, maintenance and inheritance. India has a common criminal law and common contract and property law, but family law still follows the religion of the person. Article 44 is a Directive Principle: Parliament is encouraged to enact it, but no court can order it. Parliament had not enacted a central UCC as of 2025.

Fundamental Rights (Part III) can be enforced in court; Directive Principles (Part IV) cannot. So what happens when a government makes a law to fulfil a Directive Principle, such as taking over land from a rich landlord to give to the poor, and that law seems to violate a Fundamental Right such as equality or property? For almost thirty years India's courts and Parliament fought over this question. The story ends with a balance: neither is above the other; the Constitution rests on harmony between the two. Learn the story as a chain of cases, because the examiner asks the cases by name.

Minerva Mills gave the finest summary: Fundamental Rights are not an end in themselves; they are means to the end that Part IV describes. The Constitution is built on the bedrock of balance between Parts III and IV. Giving absolute priority to either one would destroy that balance. This is why the courts today do not ask 'which is higher?' but 'can both be read together?' (the principle of harmonious construction).

Part IV is not a frozen list. Between 1976 and 2011, four Constitutional Amendments added to it or changed it. Each of them is a favourite of the examiner: the 42nd (1976), the 44th (1978), the 86th (2002) and the 97th (2011). After the amendments, we look at how Parliament and the States have turned the Directive Principles into real laws and schemes, because a question often asks 'which Act gives effect to which Article?'.

A good citizen asks 'what are my rights?' and also 'what do I owe?'. The original Constitution of 1950 spoke only of rights. During the Emergency (1975-77) the Government felt that rights without duties had created a gap, so it set up the Swaran Singh Committee (1976), and on its recommendation the 42nd Amendment (1976) inserted a new Part IV-A with one Article, Article 51A, listing ten Fundamental Duties. The 86th Amendment (2002) added an eleventh. The idea was borrowed from the Constitution of the USSR. Today there are 11 Fundamental Duties.

Fundamental Duties are moral obligations that remind citizens that rights and duties go together. They are non-justiciable: Article 51A itself provides no punishment. But Parliament can make ordinary laws to back them, for example the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (Constitution, National Flag and Anthem), the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (environment). The Swaran Singh Committee had suggested penalties and a duty to pay taxes, but Parliament did not include either.