Question map
Consider the following statements : With reference to the Constitution of India, the Directive Principles of State Policy constitute limitations upon 1. legislative function. 2. executive function. Which of the above statements is/are correct ?
Explanation
The correct answer is option D (Neither 1 nor 2). While the Fundamental Rights constitute limitations upon State action, the Directives are in the nature of instruments of instruction to the Government of the day to do certain things and to achieve certain ends by their actions.[2] This clearly establishes that Directive Principles are not limitations but rather positive instructions to guide governmental action.
The Directive Principles denote the ideals that the State should keep in mind while formulating policies and enacting laws, and are constitutional instructions or recommendations to the State in legislative, executive and administrative matters.[3] Unlike the Fundamental Rights, the directives are non-justiciable in nature, that is, they are not enforceable by the courts for their violation.[4]
Since Directive Principles are recommendatory instructions rather than binding limitations, and cannot be enforced by courts, they do not constitute limitations upon either legislative or executive functions. They serve as guiding principles for governance, not constraints on state power.
Sources- [1] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY > p. 179
- [2] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY > p. 179
- [3] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > FEATURES OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 108
- [4] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > IDirective Principles of State Policy > p. 30
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a foundational 'Nature of Constitution' question. It tests the binary distinction between Part III (Negative/Limitations) and Part IV (Positive/Instructions). If you treat DPSP as mere text without understanding their legal character (non-justiciable), you fall into the trap.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Do the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution of India constitute limitations upon the legislative function of the State?
- Statement 2: Do the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution of India constitute limitations upon the executive function of the State?
- Explicitly contrasts Directives with Fundamental Rights, stating Fundamental Rights are limitations on State action while Directives are instruments of instruction to the government.
- Says Directives require implementation by legislation and do not themselves create enforceable limits on State action.
- States Directive Principles are not justiciable/enforceable by courts, implying they do not operate as legal limitations on legislative action.
- Emphasises Directive Principles aim at welfare goals rather than creating enforceable constraints.
- Describes Directive Principles as constitutional instructions or recommendations to the State in legislative, executive and administrative matters, i.e., guidance rather than binding limits.
- Defines the term 'State' broadly but frames Directives as ideals the State should keep in mind while formulating policies and laws.
- Explicit contrast: Fundamental Rights are described as limitations on State action, whereas Directive Principles are described as 'instruments of instruction' to the Government.
- Says Directives require implementation by legislation, implying they are policy guides not self-executing constraints on executive action.
- Makes clear that in absence of implementing law, Directives do not permit violating existing laws or legal rights under the pretext of following a Directive.
- States Directive Principles are non-justiciable and cannot be enforced by courts, so the government cannot be compelled to implement them.
- Article 37 makes them 'fundamental in the governance' and a duty to apply, which indicates guidance rather than a binding limitation on executive power.
- Notes courts may consider laws implementing Directives as reasonable, reinforcing their role as guiding policy rather than as direct executive constraints.
- Describes Directive Principles as constitutional instructions/recommendations to the State in legislative, executive and administrative matters—language of guidance not prohibition.
- Clarifies that 'State' under Part IV includes executive organs, indicating Directives target executive policy-making but as advisory norms.
- Frames Directives as 'ideals the State should keep in mind' while formulating policies and laws, supporting the view they are not legal limitations.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Direct hit from Laxmikanth Ch. 9 or D.D. Basu. This is the very first paragraph of any standard chapter on DPSP.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Constitutionalism & Limited Government. Does Part IV act as a check on power (like Part III) or a mandate for power?
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'Nature' contrasts: FRs are Negative (Prohibitions) vs DPSPs are Positive (Affirmative instructions). FRs are Justiciable vs DPSPs are Non-justiciable (Art 37). FRs promote Political Democracy vs DPSPs promote Social/Economic Democracy. Precursor: Instrument of Instructions (GoI Act 1935).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: The examiner uses the word 'Limitations' as a synonym for 'Justiciability'. If a provision limits the legislature, a law violating it is void. Since DPSP violation doesn't automatically void a law, they cannot be 'limitations'. Always test constitutional statements against the power of the Judiciary to enforce them.
References explicitly contrast DPSPs (instructions/guidelines) with Fundamental Rights (limitations on State action).
High-yield for UPSC polity: frequently tested distinction affects questions on justiciability, legislative power and constitutional conflict. Mastering this enables answering questions on scope, hierarchy and cases where DPSPs influenced amendments. Study by comparing text and major judicial interpretations; practise facts-based MCQs and short answers.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY > p. 179
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > IDirective Principles of State Policy > p. 30
Several references state Directives are non-justiciable and not enforceable by courts, which is central to whether they limit legislature.
Essential for questions on enforceability, legislative competence, and constitutional amendments (e.g., property rights vs DPSPs). UPSC asks both theory and application; learn constitutional provisions (Part IV) and landmark consequences; practise by mapping scenarios where DPSPs conflict with Fundamental Rights.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > IDirective Principles of State Policy > p. 30
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > IDirective Principles of State Policy > p. 30
References describe DPSPs as ideals/instructions that show how the State should exercise legislative and executive powers.
Useful for essay and polity mains answers discussing the welfare state model, policy-making obligations and limits of parliamentary sovereignty. Helps frame arguments about moral/constitutional duty vs legal compulsion. Prepare by linking DPSPs to examples of legislation inspired by them and to classification of DPSPs.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > FEATURES OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 108
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY > p. 177
References explicitly contrast Fundamental Rights as limitations on State action with Directive Principles as instruments of instruction and policy guidance.
High-yield for UPSC: questions often probe enforceability and normative force of Parts III and IV. Mastering this distinction helps answer questions on constitutional limits, conflicts between rights and policies, and the rationale for legislative measures. Prepare by comparing authoritative summaries (e.g., Basu, Laxmikanth) and practising scenario-based MCQs that ask which provisions are justiciable.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY > p. 179
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > FEATURES OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 109
Sources state Directives are non-justiciable and that Article 37 makes them fundamental to governance but not enforceable, clarifying their legal effect.
Essential for essay and mains answers about constitutional obligations versus enforceable rights; helps in analysing state obligations, judicial review limits, and reasons for constitutional amendments. Learn by memorising Article 37's import as described and mapping examples where legislation implemented Directives.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > FEATURES OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 109
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > FEATURES OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 108
Evidence notes Article 36's definition: 'State' for Part IV includes legislative and executive organs, local authorities and other public authorities—relevant to who must 'keep in mind' the Directives.
Useful for prelims and mains questions on which bodies must follow Directive Principles and how policy responsibilities are allocated across Centre, states and local bodies. Study the constitutional definition and apply it to examples (legislation, administrative action) to answer questions about applicability and enforcement.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > FEATURES OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 108
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 2: RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION > What do the Directive Principles contain? > p. 43
The 'Sibling' Concept: While DPSPs are not limitations, Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A) are also not limitations on the legislature. However, the 'Shadow Exception' is Article 31C: laws made to implement DPSP 39(b) and 39(c) can supersede Article 14 and 19. This is the only instance where DPSP legally overpowers FRs.
Apply the 'Court Test'. If Statement 1 were true (DPSP limits legislature), then a citizen could go to court to strike down a law for *not* following a DPSP. You know from basic reading (Article 37) that courts cannot enforce DPSP. If courts can't enforce it, it's not a 'limitation' in the legal sense. Thus, both 1 and 2 are false.
Mains GS-2 (Polity & Governance): Use this distinction to argue on 'Judicial Activism'. The Supreme Court often reads DPSP into Article 21 (e.g., Right to Health/Environment), effectively converting 'Non-justiciable Goals' into 'Enforceable Rights', thereby blurring the separation of powers.