Criticism Of DPSPs

These principles have aroused considerable criticism and opposition, mainly because of the lack of clarity in their precise limits. They are criticised as being “anachronisms” that have no place in a modern state. The Indian government has made no serious attempt to give any meaning to these principles. The text of these principles itself is vague and subject to various interpretations and applications, creating uncertainty as to what they mean in practice.

Reactionary in Nature
Illogically Arranged
The constitutional conflict between centre and state

No Enforcement power
Lack of Clarity
No legal force

Reactionary in Nature

Most state governments had criticised these policies as having a reactionary nature.
Although, they have alleged that the political person in power can use these directive principles for his benefit.
Along with this, the process of enumeration of these principles needed unnecessary binding of the present policies with the past.
It makes the principles very complicated and hard to understand, making the implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy very difficult.

No legal force:

The Directive Principles are not laws and therefore have no legal force.
They are supposed to provide guiding principles for the legislators. However, the government can use them as a tool to interpret laws to gain the support of the public.
So, when it comes to implementing Directive Principles of State Policy, there is no legal force that can enforce or ensure their proper implementation and functioning.

No enforcement power:

The Directive Principles have been criticised mainly because of their non-justiciable character. So, this means the violation of DPSPs cannot be challenged in any court.
Nassiruddin, a member of the Constituent Assembly, characterized them as a set of “New Year’s resolutions”.
Prof. K.T. Shah described them as pious superfluities and compared them as ‘a cheque payable only when the resources of the bank permit’.
T T Krishnamachari described the Directives as ‘a veritable dustbin of sentiments’.
KC Wheare called them as a ‘manifesto of aims and aspirations’.

Illogically arranged:

The directives have been arranged in an illogical order and have taken a long time to be formed.
Some are broad and all-encompassing, while some are specific and minute.
The directives that deal with broad issues have been put in the middle, which is not a good arrangement as it confuses the reader.

Constitutional conflict between centre and state:

K Santhanam has pointed out that the Directive Principles lead to constitutional conflict,

Between the Centre and the States,
Between the President and the Prime Minister and
In between the Governor and the Chief minister.

Lack of clarity:

Critics often criticize these principles for their vagueness and susceptibility to interpretation, which leads to a wide range of meanings and interpretations.
They are difficult to interpret and cause confusion among different constitutional jurists and the general public.
The Indian courts have tried to apply the directive principles in specific cases, but it is difficult to ascertain what problems they should address.
Different courts in India have interpreted the principles themselves in varying ways, resulting in significant confusion among the people and within the policymaking process.