Constitution of India
Article 37: Application of the principles contained in this Part
Part IV — Directive Principles of State Policy
Article 37 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: The provisions in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. DPSPs are non-justiciable — no citizen can approach a court to compel the State to implement them. 2. Despite non-enforceability, they are constitutionally declared as fundamental to governance. 3. The State (as defined under Articles 36 and 12) has a positive duty to apply DPSPs when making laws and policies. 4. Courts cannot enforce DPSPs directly, but can take cognizance of them for interpreting other constitutional provisions. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Harmonious Construction — Fundamental Rights (Part III) and DPSPs (Part IV) must be read together, not in opposition. 2. Doctrine of Non-Justiciability — DPSPs create moral and political obligations, not legal remedies. 3. Basic Structure Doctrine link — Balance between Parts III and IV is an essential feature of the Constitution's basic structure (Minerva Mills, 1980).
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Irish Constitution, 1937 — Article 45 (Directive Principles of Social Policy) Original provision: Article 45 states that principles of social policy are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas and 'shall not be cognisable by any Court.' What India kept: The concept of non-enforceable socio-economic principles placed as constitutional directives to the State. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Instrument of Instructions Original provision: Instructions issued to the Governor-General and Governors on policy matters, not enforceable by courts. What India kept: The idea of directive guidelines binding on the conscience of the executive. 3. Spanish Constitution — Socio-economic rights provisions Original provision: Spain first introduced directive-type socio-economic principles, later borrowed by Ireland. What India kept: The broader framework of listing welfare-oriented goals in the constitutional text. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Used 'shall not be enforceable' instead of Ireland's 'shall not be cognisable' — This subtle difference allows Indian courts to take cognizance of DPSPs for interpretive purposes, unlike the absolute exclusion in Ireland. 2. DPSPs are addressed to the entire 'State' (executive + legislature + all authorities under Art. 12), not just the legislature (Oireachtas) as in Ireland — Reflects India's broader vision of welfare governance. 3. Declared DPSPs as 'fundamental in the governance of the country' — A stronger moral imperative than Ireland's 'general guidance', making them a constitutional obligation on the State. 4. Expanded DPSPs across 16 articles (Arts. 38–51) instead of Ireland's single Article 45 — Reflects India's diverse socio-economic challenges at independence.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 19 November 1948 (CAD Volume VII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 29 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Supported non-justiciable character; stated DPSPs are directions to future legislatures and executives, not mere pious wishes. Described DPSPs as 'novel features' of the Constitution akin to 'Instruments of Instructions' under the 1935 Act. 2. Kazi Syed Karimuddin (C.P. & Berar) — Moved an amendment to make DPSPs justiciable; argued that without legal force they would be 'pious wishes' ignored by governments, and that socio-economic principles ignored under colonial rule needed enforceability. 3. M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras) — Supported the non-justiciable nature; argued that courts cannot compel the State to build schools or raise wages, so enforceability was impractical. 4. Nasiruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) — Criticized DPSPs as 'no better than New Year's resolutions, which are broken on the second of January.' MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Justiciability — Karimuddin proposed making DPSPs enforceable; opposed by Ayyangar and the Drafting Committee on grounds of practical impossibility. 2. Terminology — Sardar Patel's Advisory Committee had titled these 'Fundamental Principles of Governance'; the Drafting Committee changed the title to 'Directive Principles of State Policy'. FINAL OUTCOME: Article adopted WITHOUT amendment on 19 November 1948; the non-justiciable character was retained as originally drafted. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: "It is the intention of this Assembly that in future both the legislature and the executive should not merely pay lip service to these principles enacted in this part, but that they should be made the basis of all executive and legislative action that may be taken hereafter in the matter of the governance of the country."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) — Held that DPSPs must yield to Fundamental Rights in case of conflict; DPSPs cannot override Part III rights. Led to the First Constitutional Amendment inserting Article 15(4). 2. I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) — Held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights even to implement DPSPs; Fundamental Rights occupy a 'transcendental position'. Later overruled by Kesavananda Bharati. 3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — Established the Basic Structure Doctrine; recognized that both Fundamental Rights and DPSPs form part of the Constitution's basic framework and Parliament can amend rights but cannot destroy their essence. 4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) — Declared that Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are complementary; their harmony and balance is an essential feature of the basic structure. Struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that gave DPSPs primacy over Fundamental Rights. 5. Pathumma v. State of Kerala (1978) — Emphasised that DPSPs should guide legislative policies even though they are not enforceable by courts. 6. Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) — Used DPSPs (Articles 41, 45) to derive the right to education from Article 21; held that Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are supplementary and complementary. Established right to free education up to age 14. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice H.R. Khanna in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — While part of the majority on basic structure, differed on scope of amendability and the extent to which DPSPs could justify curtailment of Fundamental Rights. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Granville Austin — Described Fundamental Rights and DPSPs together as the 'Conscience of the Constitution'; DPSPs are 'aimed at furthering the goals of the social revolution.' 2. H.M. Seervai — Argued DPSPs are 'politically significant but constitutionally irrelevant'; courts in early decades adopted this restrictive view. 3. T.T. Krishnamachari (Constituent Assembly member) — Described DPSPs as a 'veritable dustbin of sentiments.' 4. K.C. Wheare — Called DPSPs a 'manifesto of aims and aspirations' serving as 'moral homily.' 5. Sir Ivor Jennings — Dismissed DPSPs as mere 'pious aspirations.' 6. Sir B.N. Rau (Constitutional Advisor) — Recommended the division of rights into justiciable (Fundamental Rights) and non-justiciable (DPSPs), directly shaping Article 37.