The Directive Principles of State Policy have been criticised by some members of the Constituent Assembly as well as other constitutional and political experts on the following grounds:

1. No Legal Force:

The Directives have been criticised mostly for being non-justiciable. While K T Shah referred to them as "pious superfluities" and compared them to "a cheque on a bank, payable only when the bank's resources permit," Nasiruddin said that they are "no better than new year's resolutions, which are violated on the second of January." T T Krishnamachari dubbed the Directives a "veritable trash of sentiments," K C Wheare called them a "manifesto of ideals and aspirations," and Sir Ivor Jennings said they were merely "pious aspirations."

2. Illogically Arranged:

Critics argue that the Directives are not organised logically and are not founded on a cohesive philosophy. 'The Directives are neither adequately classified nor rationally organised,' says N Srinivasan. The proclamation juggles relatively minor topics with the most pressing economic and social concerns. It blends the modern with the ancient, and provisions proposed by reason and science with ones based solely on passion and prejudice." Sir Ivor Jennings, too, noted that these concepts lack a cohesive philosophy.

3. Conservative:

The Directives, according to Sir Ivor Jennings, are based on the political philosophy of nineteenth-century England. 'The ghosts of Sydney Webb and Beatrice Webb lurk through the pages of the text,' he commented. Part IV of the Constitution "expresses Fabian Socialism without socialism." He believes the Directives are "appropriate in India in the middle of the twentieth century." The question of whether they are appropriate for the twenty-first century cannot be answered; however, it is very likely that they will be completely outmoded.

4. Constitutional Conflict:

According to K Santhanam, the Directives cause a constitutional conflict (a) between the Centre and the states, (b) between the President and the Prime Minister, and (c) between the governor and the Chief Minister. According to him, the Centre has the authority to direct states on how to follow these principles and, in the event of noncompliance, to dismiss the state government. Similarly, if the Prime Minister gets a bill enacted by Parliament that contradicts the Directive Values, the president may reject the bill on the grounds that these principles are vital to the country's government and hence the ministry has no right to ignore them. At the state level, the governor and chief minister may face the same constitutional issue.