Why were the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) made non-j... | UPSC Mains Model Answer

Why were the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) made non-justiciable despite being fundamental to the governance of the country?

Based on 22 evaluated answers to this question on CollectorBabu: here is what aspirants most often missed, the mistakes that cost marks, and a model answer.

What most aspirants missed

Article 37 text: DPSPs are 'not enforceable by any court' but are 'fundamental in the governance of the country', which states the paradox the question asks about.
Constituent Assembly debates: Ambedkar said India lacked financial resources and administrative machinery at Independence, while K.T. Shah argued for justiciability.
Irish Constitution origin: DPSPs were borrowed from the Irish Constitution, and B.N. Rau's suggestion shows the non-justiciability was a deliberate choice.
Separation of powers: courts deciding budgets and policy priorities would become a super-legislature, so non-justiciability protects executive and legislative discretion.
42nd Amendment (1976) gave DPSPs primacy over FRs, and Minerva Mills (1980) struck this down, establishing the FR-DPSP balance.
Indirect enforcement via Article 21, such as Unni Krishnan (1993) on the right to education, and the harmonious construction doctrine.

Common mistakes

Describing how DPSPs were implemented through laws and schemes instead of explaining why they were made non-justiciable.
Citing Article 31 or Article 47 examples without linking them to the non-justiciability argument.
Confusing Article 31C with Articles 31A and 31B, or presenting Kesavananda Bharati as a criticism of DPSPs rather than their constitutional protection.
Using vague phrases such as 'critics argue' or claiming diversity as the reason, without naming any case, debate or member.

What the better answers did

Quoting Article 37 and framing 'fundamental yet non-justiciable' as the central tension of the answer.
Linking each reason to a specific Constituent Assembly debate, case or amendment rather than to general statements.
Clearly contrasting enforceable Fundamental Rights with aspirational DPSPs and explaining the complementary relationship.
Ending with the evolution from Champakam Dorairajan to Minerva Mills and the indirect enforcement through Article 21.

Introduction

Open by quoting Article 37 and naming the paradox in the question, then state that the answer will argue non-justiciability was a deliberate design choice.

Conclusion

Close by saying that the design keeps courts and legislatures in their roles while courts use DPSPs to interpret FRs, the balance Minerva Mills affirmed.

Model answer

Article 37 states that DPSPs are not enforceable by any court, yet they are 'fundamental in the governance of the country'. The framers made this choice deliberately, based on resource limits, the need for executive discretion and the separation of powers.

Reasons for non-justiciability

Resource constraints: Ambedkar acknowledged in the Constituent Assembly that India lacked both financial resources and administrative machinery at Independence, so obligations such as universal education could not be enforced immediately.
Progressive realisation: DPSPs were goals to be achieved as resources permit, not immediate legal duties.
Separation of powers: Policy priorities and budgets belong to the legislature and executive. Courts directing them would become a super-legislature.
Irish borrowing and Gandhian ideal: The concept came from the Irish Constitution, with B.N. Rau's influence, and Gandhiji wanted DPSPs to be a moral compass, not a legal straitjacket.

Subsequent evolution

Champakam Dorairajan (1951) made Fundamental Rights prevail over DPSPs, which led to the First Amendment.
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) established the basic structure doctrine. Minerva Mills (1980) then held that the balance between FRs and DPSPs is itself part of the basic structure and struck down the blanket primacy given by the 42nd Amendment (1976).
Article 31C, added by the 25th Amendment for Articles 39(b) and (c), was extended by the 42nd Amendment to all DPSPs, and Minerva Mills limited this.
Courts have enforced some DPSPs indirectly through Article 21, for instance Unni Krishnan (1993) on the right to education, which was later made explicit by Article 21A.

Non-justiciability was therefore a design choice that kept courts and legislatures in their proper roles. Courts use DPSPs to interpret FRs, and Minerva Mills affirmed that this balance is central to the Constitution.

Write this answer and get it evaluated

Handwritten answers, expert-reviewed, back in under 24 hours. Start with the ₹49 Trial.

Evaluate my answer