42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976

It brought certain modifications to Part IV of the Constitution by adding new guidelines:

• Article 39A: To provide free legal aid to the poor.
• Article 39(f): Children must be given enough opportunities and facilities so that they develop in a healthy manner and in such conditions where their freedom and dignity, and their childhood and youth are protected, against any form of exploitation and against any sort of moral and material abandonment.
• Article 43A: Participation of workers in management of Industries.
• Article 48A: To protect and improve the environment.

44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978

It included Section 2 in Article 38, which states, “The State in particular shall strive to minimize economic disparities in income and eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities not only among individuals but also among groups.” It also removed the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights.

86th Amendment Act of 2002

It changed the subject-matter of Article 45 and made elementary education a fundamental right under Article 21 A.

Directives outside Part IV

The framers of the Constitution added a few more guidelines outside Part IV, which include: 

1. Claims of SCs and STs to Services (Article 335; Part XVI)
2. Instruction in mother tongue (Article 350-A; Part XVII)
3. Development of Hindi Language (Article 351; Part XVII)

These guidelines are also non-justiciable and hold equal importance to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in Part IV. The judiciary has stated that all sections of the Constitution should be interpreted together. 

Utility of Directive Principles

Sir B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly, recommended that the rights of an individual should be divided into two categories; Justiciable Rights and Non-justiciable Rights.

This recommendation was accepted by the Drafting Committee. As a result, the Fundamental Rights, which are justiciable, are included in Part III, while the Directive Principles, which are non-justiciable, are found in Part IV of the Constitution. Although the Directive Principles are not justiciable, they hold considerable significance in the Indian political landscape: 

• Educative Value: Sir B. N. Rau, the constitutional advisor to the Constituent Assembly, stated that these directives have an educational value. It reminds those in power that the goal of the Indian polity is to introduce ‘socialism in the economic sphere’ or ‘economic democracy’ as distinguished from political democracy. 
• Force of public opinion: Representatives of people in the government are there to serve the people. They are voted to power to implement the provisions of the Constitution. Consequently, these guidelines serve as fundamental benchmarks of national ethics, and disregarding their mandates could jeopardize the authority of those in power. State agents may not face legal accountability for adhering to these directive principles, but they will be answerable in the court of public opinion.
• Amplify the vision of the Preamble: These guidelines highlight that the aim of the Indian political framework is not merely laissez-faire but rather the establishment of a welfare state. The state has a positive duty to ensure its citizens get social and economic justice and dignity of individuals is maintained. They serve as ‘Instrument of Instruction’ for all future governments, irrespective of which Political party is in power. 
• Reference for courts: These Directives have helped the courts in exercising their power of judicial review while determining the constitutional validity of a law. The courts have, on several occasions, relied on these principles to test the validity of a law. The importance attributed to the directive principles was acknowledged in the Minerva Mills vs Union of India case, where the Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights must be aligned with Directive Principles, and such alignment is a fundamental feature of the Constitution.
• Stable Policy: They promote stable domestic and foreign policies in the political, economic, and social realms, regardless of which party holds power. They serve as a common political manifesto for political parties. Irrespective of their ideology, Political Parties have to recognise these principles as guiding philosophy while implementing its legislative and executive acts.
• Supplement Fundamental Rights: They are intended to fill the gap in Part III by providing for social and economic rights. Implementation of these principles creates a favourable atmosphere for full and proper enjoyment of the fundamental rights by the citizens. Political democracy without economic and social democracy has no meaning. 
• Empower the Opposition: Non-implementation of DPSP gives opposition parties an opportunity to criticise the government for its failure to fulfil the aspirations of the people, the Constitution and the Constitution makers. This contributes to a vibrant democracy.

Former Chief Justice of India , M. C. Chagla has remarked that, “If all these principles are fully carried out, our country would indeed become a heaven on earth. Along with being a democracy in the political sense, India will become a welfare state looking after the well-being of its citizens.” American Historian Granville Austin had opined that the Directive Principles are designed to advance the objectives of social reform or to promote this reform by creating the conditions needed for its realization.

Criticism of Directive Principles

• No Legal sanction: Non-justiciability is a criticism of the DPSPs. Thus, these directives impose no legal obligation on the state. K. C. Wheare had called these directives as a ‘manifesto of aims and aspirations’ and opined that they serve as mere ‘moral homily’, Sir Ivor Jennings thought they are only as ‘pious aspirations’.
• Lack of consistent philosophy: Sir Ivor Jennings noted that fundamental rights lack a consistent philosophical foundation. The same flaw is evident in the Directive Principles. N. Srinivasan argues that the way the directives of state policy are articulated is less than inspiring, as they are both ambiguous and repetitive. The directives are neither categorized effectively nor structured logically. The declaration conflates relatively minor issues with crucial economic and social concerns. It inappropriately combines modern elements with outdated ones and includes provisions rooted solely in sentiment and bias. 
• Conservative: Sir Ivor Jennings asserted that the Directives are founded on the political philosophy from 19th century England. Part IV of the Constitution reflects Fabian Socialism without embodying socialism itself. Numerous experts have raised doubts about the applicability of the Directive Principles in the 21st century. 
• Constitutional Conflict: K Santhanam highlighted that the Directives can result in constitutional conflicts, such as the one between the center and the states, since the central government may instruct the states on how to implement these principles, and if the states fail to comply, the central government can dismiss the state government. There are also concerns that conflicts could arise between the President and Prime Minister; for instance, when the President receives a bill from Parliament that contradicts the Directive Principles, he may choose to reject it on the grounds that these principles are essential for governance and thus the ministry should not disregard them. A similar constitutional conflict may occur between the Governor and Chief Minister of a state.