The document discusses the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in India and Nepal. It explains that DPSPs aim to establish social and economic democracy through a welfare state by guiding governments, though they are non-justiciable. It outlines the characteristics and differences between DPSPs and fundamental rights, and how courts have increasingly considered DPSPs in their rulings to balance social justice and rights. The document also provides details on the constitutional status and inclusion of DPSPs in Nepal from early constitutions to the current one.

1. Directive Principles of State
Policy
By :
Prashant BikramShah
(Law Student)
email :prashantshah746@gmail.com

2. Meaning of DPSP
• “In any Judgment, the directive principles have a
great value for they lay down that our ideal is
economic democracy” . – BR Ambedkar ( Architect of Indian
Constitution)
• Directive Principles are fundamental in the
governance of a country and the State is under an
obligation to apply these principles in making laws ,
though they cannot be enforced by a court order.
• Though they are not enforceable but are expected to
guide the governance of the country.

3. • Also known as “Charter of Fundamental Principles”.
• DPSP are inspired from the Irish precedent. It’s a
unique feature of our constitution . Socio-economic
rights are included under this head.
• Directive Principles in a capitalist and socialist
country vary considerably. Directive Principles are
the overall policies undertaken by the State to
achieve social justice and economic democracy .
• DPSP constitutes directions given to the central ,
State and local governments to guide the
establishment of a just, peaceful , open and
prosperous society .

4. DPSP are made non-justiciable & non-
challengeable in courts because :
• The State may not collect enough resources to
implement them , &
• There may be a change of guard in
government or even a new political system
may emerge. The new government or system
may look at socio-economic justice in a
different light.

5. Characteristics
• DPSP aim to create social and economic
conditions under which the citizens can lead a
good life .
• They are also aim to establish social and
economic democracy through welfare state
• Non-Justiciable ( cannot be settled or enforced
by Courts) – Article 55
• Positive duties of the State

6. Concept
• Serve as a yardstick in the hands of the people to
measure the performance of the government.
• *If the government enacts law to give effect to the
Directive Principles over Fundamental rights , they shall
remain valid even on the grounds that they take away
some of those rights.
• In case of a conflict between FRs and DPSP , if the
latter aim at promoting larger interest of the society,
the court will have to sustain Directive Principles .
• This concept is the largest development in the
constitutional governments throughout the world, with
the growing acceptance of a Welfare State.

7. • The Directive Principles do not override the
fundamental rights , in general, but in determining
the scope of FRs, the courts are not at liberty to
completely neglect the principles.
• The Directive Principles are taken into account in
deciding whether or not a restriction on FRs is
reasonable one.
For e.g. In India, The Minimum Wages Act ,1948 was
held valid by the Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy
Cotton Mills Vs State of Ajmer (1955) , as it was
enacted to give effect to the Directive Principles laid
down in the Article 43 of the Indian Constitution

8. Some Common Themes of DPSP
found in Modern Democracies
• The State must continually work towards
providing an adequate means of livelihood for
all citizens
• Equal pay for equal work for men & women
• Proper working condition
• Protection against exploitation
• Reduce the concentration of wealth and
means of production into the hands of a few.

9. • The State must safeguard the environment
and wildlife of the country
• The State should commit itself to raise the
standard of living & improve public health
• The state should also strive for the
maintenance of international peace and
stability, etc

10. Relation Between FRs & DPSP
• “The core of commitment to social evolution
lies in the FRs & DPSP. These are the
conscience of the constitution.” – Granville
Austin
• In the case of Minerva Mills Vs UoI (1980) , The
Supreme court of India famously noted that : There
is no conflict between the directive principles & FRs
and they are meant to supplement each other. There
is no disharmony between them.

11. • The FRs are more concerned with the civil and
political liberties of the people whereas Directive
Principles relate more with their economic and
cultural rights .
• The rights are negative duties of the State
whereas the Directive Principles are positive
duties of the State towards its citizens .
• FRs make up positive constitutional law as they
are legally enforceable . However , directive
principles make up normative (मानक)
constitutional law as they are cannot be
enforced by the operation of law.

12. Distinction Between Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy
Fundamental Rights
• These are negative as they
prohibit the State from
doing certain things
• These are justiciable i.e.
they are legally enforceable
by the courts in case of their
violation
• These have legal sanctions
Directive Principles
• These are positive as they
require the State to do
certain things
• These are non-justiciable
i.e. they are not legally
enforceable by the courts
for their violation.
• These have moral and
political sanctions

13. • They aim at establishing
political democracy in the
country
• They promote the welfare
of the individual. Hence,
they are personal &
individualistic.
• They do not require any
legislation for their
implementation. They are
automatically enforced.
• They aim at establishing
social and economic
democracy in the country.
• They promote the welfare
of the community. Hence,
they are socialistic.
• They require legislation for
their implementation. They
are not automatically
enforced.

14. All the FRs are possible to be implemented by the State , but it
would be next to impossible to implement the entirely of
directive principles , because :
• The rights are clear , self-evident & concrete
whereas the principles are vague , hazy , and
formless
• Realization of FRs can be done at a far lesser
cost than that of directive principles .
• Finally, FRs may be balanced with FDs of
citizens , but no such reciprocity is possible in
the case of directive principles.

15. Constitutional Status & Techniques of
Enforcement
• Nepal’s tryst with DPSP began with the Interim
Governance Statute of Nepal , 2007 BS .
*Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2015
• The prevailing Constitution of Nepal (2072 BS) can be
regarded as a gold mine of DPSP , as it has included
the tallest number of Principles as well as the most
diverse , among all of the Nepali constitutions by far.
• In Part 4
• From Article 49 to 55

16. Directive principles in the constitution
of Nepal
• Adopted from the Irish Constitution (1936 AD, 1993
BS)
• The Statute of government of Nepal, 2004 BS : Not
clearly mentioned about the DPSP. However Article
60 can be taken as the Principle of State policy

17. • The Interim Governance Statute of Nepal, 2007 BS *:
Adopted DPSP for the first time .
 DPSP was mingled with FRs in Part 2(DPSP) of the
Constitution
 From Article 3 to 21 under Part 2 (DPSP)
 Articles from 3 to 13 are only considered as DPSP
• The Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal, 2015 BS : First
Constitution ever which hasn’t included the DPSP
• The Constitution of Nepal, 2019 : Mentioned in part 4
and named as “Objectives and principles of social policy ”
(समाज नीतिका उदेश्य र ससधान्िहरु) which later changed to
“Directive Principles of Panchayat System” the first
Amendment.

18. • Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2047 BS * : Mentioned
in Part 4 (Directive Principles and Policies of the State)
• From Article 24 to 26
 Article 24 Application of Directive Principles and Policies
 Article 25 Directive Principles of the State
 Article 26 State Policies
• The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 BS* : Mentioned in
Part 4 (Responsibilities, Directive Principles and Policies of the
State )
• From Article 33 to 36
• The Constitution of Nepal, 2072 BS* : Mentioned in Part 4
(Directive Principles, Policies and obligations of the State)
• From Article 49 to 55

19.  Some major State Policies (2072 BS):
1. To strengthen the federal democratic republican system to
ensure the enjoyment of democratic rights.
2. To strengthen national unity by maintaining social harmony,
solidarity & harmony.
3. To develop a socialism-oriented, independent and
prosperous economy by making the national economy self-
reliant, independent & prosperous.
4. To enhance national respect in the world community by
maintaining international relations on the basis of universal
equality while protecting Nepal's independence,
sovereignty, geographical integrity, independence &
national interest.

20. • In Article 51 the State policies are being divided
under different headings in order to make it simple
and more meaningful*
• Article 53 : To Submit Report
• Art. 54 : Provisions relating to Monitoring

21. Court Observation Relevant to DPSP
• “There can be no doubt that the objective of the FRs is to
ensure the idea of political democracy and Prevent
authoritarian rule , while the objective of the directive
principles of state policy is to establish a welfare state where
there is economic and social freedom without which political
democracy has no meaning”. – Keshavananda Bharti Vs State
of Kerala
• Faizal Ali (Judge in India) : “The Directive Principles are the
stairs to climb the high edifice( a large Building) of a socialist
state and the Fundamental Rights are the means through
which one can reach the top of the edifice.”

22. • The Supreme Court of Nepal also seems to have been making
a number of decisions keeping in view the Directive
Principles.
 In Yogi Narharinath Vs Hon'ble Prime Minister Girija Prasad
Koirala , the court said that though Directive principles of
State Policies cannot be enforced by the court, it doesn’t mean
that the Govt. is not answerable if the Govt. goes against the
Constitutional provisions related to State Policies
 Similarly , In Prakashmani Sharma Vs HMG the Court said that
The Directive Principles and State Policies Provided in Part 4
of the Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal , 2047 , are not
meaningless and can’t even ignored. If it seems to be ignored
by the Govt. then the Court may Provide the necessary
directions to the Govt.

23. • Even in Surya Pd. Dhungel Vs Godawari Marbal Pvt.
Ltd. The Court provided that the environment
protection falls under State Policy that’s why it must
be given priority.
• In the case of Bal Krishna Neupane Vs Parliament
Secretariat and Singha Durbar, it has been
mentioned that even though the Directive Principles
cannot be directly enforced by the court, it will help
in the interpretation of the constitution.

24. Conclusion
• Nowadays, FRs & Directive Principles are seen as
complementary (पूरक). It is becoming clear from the court
practices that both of them are equally important.
• The main basis of difference between these two is their
enforceability , however courts have begun to increase their
activism in this regard and have begun to bring the Directive
Principles within their jurisdiction.
• The Directive Principles are important for the state to call
itself a public welfare, to be liberal towards the rights of
citizens and to provide guidance to future canons.
• The Directive Principles also empower the government to
make laws that protect the rights of the people.