The Constitution of India, hailed as a living document, is not just a compilation of laws but a vision for a just and inclusive society. Among its most visionary components is Part IV – the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). These principles were framed not for judicial enforcement, but as moral compasses to guide governance. However, decades after independence, the question arises:

Have these principles become mere decorative words, ignored by those in power unless politically profitable?

The Ideal vs. the Real

The Directive Principles aim to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order where justice—social, economic, and political—prevails. They include principles like:

• Equal pay for equal work
• Protection of the environment
• Right to education
• Health and nutrition
• Living wage and humane working conditions
• Promotion of cottage industries
• Uniform civil code for the citizens

Yet, a bitter reality persists—these principles are not enforceable in a court of law.

A Conscious Choice: Why No Legal Enforcement?

The Constituent Assembly, led by visionaries like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, made a deliberate decision to keep DPSPs non-justiciable. They believed governance should have ethical flexibility, not legal compulsion, allowing governments to act progressively as resources allowed.

But they also assumed a basic sincerity—that governments would act in good faith to realize these principles over time.

Power Over Principles: A Modern Government's Approach

In today’s political climate, governments cherry-pick Directive Principles based on vote-bank calculations. Welfare schemes are rolled out not as duties but as tools for re-election. Educational reforms, gender justice, tribal welfare—these are often promised but postponed, unless they align with the party's electoral interests.

Take for instance:

1. Uniform Civil Code – constitutionally envisioned, but politically volatile.
2. Right to Work – acknowledged in schemes like MGNREGA, yet riddled with inconsistencies and corruption.
3. Prohibition of alcohol – present in the Constitution but selectively applied by states based on political gain.

The Tragedy of Silence: No Legal Remedy

As citizens, we cannot go to court and demand implementation of Article 39 (equal livelihood) or Article 47 (nutrition and public health). The courts may sympathize, but they will not act.

This has led to a serious gap: What was meant to be the soul of governance has become a forgotten chapter, revisited only during manifestos and election rallies.

Time to Reimagine the Role of DPSPs?

Some scholars and activists argue that the time has come to grant partial justiciability to certain Directive Principles—especially those now internationally recognized as human rights (health, education, housing).

Shouldn’t a Constitution be more than a book of ideas? Shouldn't citizens have the right to demand not just protection from the State, but active welfare from it?

Reflection

Directive Principles were never meant to be political tools or ignored promises. They were ethical duties, not legal loopholes. If our governments continue to treat them as optional, we must ask:

Is democracy truly working for the people, or merely for the powerful?