Constitution of India

Article 36: Definition

Part IV — Directive Principles of State Policy

Article 36

WHAT IT SAYS: 'In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" has the same meaning as in Part III.' — It imports the definition of 'State' from Article 12 into Part IV (DPSPs). WHAT IT MEANS: Every authority bound by Fundamental Rights (Part III) — including the Government of India, State Governments, Parliament, State Legislatures, local authorities, and other authorities — is equally obligated to implement Directive Principles under Part IV. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Uniform State Obligation — the same entities that must respect Fundamental Rights must also strive to fulfil Directive Principles, creating an integrated constitutional framework.

Constitutional Inspiration

SOURCE(S): 1. Constitution of Ireland (1937) — Article 45 ('Directive Principles of Social Policy') Original provision: Article 45 set out non-justiciable social policy principles for the guidance of the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament), covering welfare, fair distribution of resources, and economic security. What India kept: The concept of non-justiciable directive principles guiding the State in governance, placed in a separate Part distinct from enforceable Fundamental Rights. 2. Spanish Constitution — Ultimate historical origin of Irish DPSP Original provision: Spain pioneered constitutionally embedded social-economic directives that inspired the Irish model. What India kept: The idea that socio-economic goals should have constitutional stature even if not court-enforceable. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Wider scope of 'State' — India defined 'State' broadly under Article 12 (including local/other authorities), unlike Ireland which directed principles only to the legislature (Oireachtas). 2. Cross-reference mechanism (Art. 36) — India created a unique definitional bridge between Parts III and IV to ensure uniform accountability, which the Irish Constitution did not do. 3. More detailed enumeration — India expanded DPSPs across 16 articles (Art. 36–51) covering social justice, economic welfare, education, environment, and international peace — far more detailed than Ireland's single Article 45.

Constituent Assembly Debate

DEBATED ON: 19 November 1948 (CAD Volume VII) Draft Article Number: 28 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Opposed removing 'the State' or replacing it with 'State'; explained that 'the State' was deliberately used in both collective and distributive sense as in Part III, covering Government, Parliament, Legislatures, and all local/other authorities. 2. Kazi Syed Karimuddin (C.P. & Berar) — Moved amendment to delete the word 'Directive' from Part IV's heading, arguing these principles were 'Fundamental' in nature. 3. Naziruddin Ahmad — Proposed replacing 'the State' with 'State' and removing 'unless the context otherwise requires', arguing these words created needless uncertainty. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. 'Directive' vs 'Fundamental' in Part IV heading — Karimuddin wanted 'Fundamental Principles'; it was clarified that 'Directive' was chosen to distinguish Part IV from Part III (Fundamental Rights). 2. 'the State' vs 'State' — Naziruddin Ahmad wanted plain 'State'; Ambedkar opposed this, explaining that 'the State' had a specific technical meaning under Part III encompassing all authorities including panchayats and local boards. 3. 'unless the context otherwise requires' — Naziruddin Ahmad wanted these words removed as causing uncertainty; this amendment was negatived. FINAL OUTCOME: All three amendments (deletion of 'unless the context otherwise requires', substitution of 'indicates' for 'requires', and substitution of 'State' for 'the State') were negatived; Draft Article 28 was adopted as originally drafted. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: "The words 'the State' in Article 28 have been used deliberately. In this Constitution, the word 'State' has been used in two different senses."

Landmark Judgments

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) — Held that statutory corporations created by law and performing governmental functions fall within 'other authorities' under Article 12, thereby also within Article 36's scope for DPSPs. 2. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) — Held that LIC, ONGC, and IFC are 'State' under Article 12; statutory corporations performing public duties are bound by both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. 3. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) — Laid down a six-factor 'instrumentality test' to determine whether a body is an agency of the State under Article 12, thereby expanding the reach of Article 36 obligations. 4. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) — Refined the test: a body substantially financed or controlled by government may be deemed 'State'; clarified that no single factor is determinative. 5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — While primarily on basic structure, reiterated that Directive Principles must influence governance and that the same State apparatus is accountable for both Parts III and IV. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice Alagiriswami in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975) — Dissented from the majority; questioned whether all statutory corporations should automatically be treated as 'State' under Article 12. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. B.N. Rau (Constitutional Adviser) — Described Directive Principles as 'an Instrument of Instructions from the ultimate sovereign, namely, the people of India'. 2. Justice P.N. Bhagwati — Through Ajay Hasia and R.D. Shetty, championed an expansive reading of 'State' to cover instrumentalities and agencies, ensuring broader accountability under both Articles 12 and 36.