11. Criticism of DPSP’s

a) Critics point out the lack of consistency in the DPSP’s. Apparently greatly important directives have been mixed with seemingly less important ones. Further, they have not been 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’.

b) Also, their non-enforceable nature leaves their implementation on the discretion of the government of the day.

c) They have been criticized as a dustbin of sentiments – as they contain merely the vision of constitution makers without any instrumentalities to achieve it

d) It has been argued that since the Constitution is the basic law of the land, it should not contain anything, which is non-justiciable.

e) Also, they have been criticized on the ground that they disturb the federal structure – directives are instructions to both union and state governments. Much of the directives deal with those subjects, which come under state list. K. Santhanam has pointed out that the Directives lead to a constitutional conflict:

♤ Between the Centre and the States

♤ Between the President and the Prime Minister, and

♤ 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.