Directive Principles of State Policy

Part IV, Articles 36 to 51: the goals the Constitution sets for every government, and why no court can enforce them

In one minute

Part IV of the Constitution, Articles 36 to 51, lists goals that every government must work towards: justice, a living wage, education, a clean environment and peace. Article 37 says no court can enforce them. It also says they are fundamental in the governance of the country.

Exams ask for the meaning of Article 37, the difference from Fundamental Rights, and the Champakam rule that a Fundamental Right wins in a direct clash. A problem question often asks whether a court can order the State to act on one of these goals.

Exam focus

Frequency: No data
Usually asked as: No data

Legal provision

Article 36: in Part IV, "the State" has the same meaning as in Part III. So it covers the Union and State Governments, Parliament, the State Legislatures and local and other authorities.
Article 37: the provisions of Part IV are not enforceable by any court. The principles are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country. It is the duty of the State to apply them in making laws.
Article 38(1): the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice informs all national institutions.
Article 38(2): the State shall strive to minimise inequalities in income and to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. The 44th Amendment (20 June 1979) added this clause.
Article 39: the State shall direct its policy towards six goals, (a) to (f). They include an adequate means of livelihood, distribution of material resources for the common good, and equal pay for equal work.
Articles 40 to 51: the remaining principles, from village panchayats (Article 40) to international peace (Article 51). Articles 39A, 43A, 43B and 48A were added later by amendments.
Article 15(4): the First Amendment (18 June 1951) allows special provision for socially and educationally backward classes and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It followed Champakam.

Meaning and definition

The Directive Principles of State Policy are the instructions in Part IV that tell the legislature and the executive what goals to aim at. They are not rights that a person can claim. They are a standing instruction to every government. The Constitution calls them non-justiciable, which means a court cannot enforce them by itself.

Part III protects individuals against the State. Part IV asks the State to build a fair society. Together they aim at a welfare state that keeps both liberty and social justice.

Can a court enforce this claim?How to read this: go down the boxes in order. A "No" answer sends you to the result beside the box.

1. Does the claim rest only on a provision of Part IV? Article 37
No: it rests on a Fundamental Right or a statute, so a court can enforce it.
2. Has the legislature made a law that gives effect to the principle? Article 37, last words
No: the court cannot order the State to make one.
Yes to both: the court enforces the statute, and may read the principle into the Fundamental Right.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: where Part IV sits

Part IV runs from Article 36 to Article 51. Article 36 borrows the meaning of "State" from Part III, so every body that must respect a Fundamental Right must also keep the Directive Principles in view. Article 12 gives that meaning.

Step 2: what Article 37 does

Article 37 does three things. First, it bars every court from enforcing Part IV. Second, it calls the principles fundamental in the governance of the country. Third, it makes it the duty of the State to apply them in making laws.

So the bar is on the court, not on the government. A government that ignores Part IV cannot be sued for it. But it is still bound to apply the principles when it makes laws.

Example. Article 40 asks the State to organise village panchayats. If a State had none, no villager could get a court order for one under Article 40 alone. The legislature and the voters are the check.

Step 3: why the framers made them unenforceable

The text itself shows one reason. Article 41 asks the State to make effective provision for work, education and public assistance, but only "within the limits of its economic capacity and development". A goal that depends on money and time is hard for a court to measure or enforce.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar compared Part IV to the Instruments of Instructions issued to Governors under the Government of India Act, 1935. He said these were now addressed to the legislature and the executive. Secondary sources also link the idea to the Irish Constitution of 1937.

Step 4: the Champakam rule

In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), a seven-Judge Bench struck down the Madras "communal G.O.", which fixed college seats by community. Madras said Article 46 allowed it. Das J. wrote for the Court that the Communal G.O. violated Article 29(2). The Court rejected the Article 46 argument.

The Court held that the Directive Principles "have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights". In plain words, a Directive Principle cannot be used to cut down a Fundamental Right. The State may still act on Part IV where no Fundamental Right is infringed.

Example. A State reserves 40 per cent of seats in a public college for one community alone, saying it advances the weaker sections under Article 46. Under Champakam, Article 46 cannot save a measure that breaks Article 29(2).

Step 5: what happened after Champakam

The First Amendment added Article 15(4) within months. This let the State make special provision for backward classes without breaking Article 15. The courts later moved from "Part III always wins" to reading both Parts together. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the Court said Parts III and IV "together constitute the core of our Constitution and combine to form its conscience".

Don't confuse: Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

Point	Fundamental Rights (Part III)	Directive Principles (Part IV)
Enforcement	Enforced by writ under Articles 32 and 226	Not enforceable by any court (Article 37)
What they do	Mostly limit what the State may do to a person	Tell the State what goals to work towards
Who claims	A person whose right is violated	No one; the legislature and the voters hold the State to account
If they clash	Prevails over a clashing principle (Champakam)	Cannot override a Fundamental Right

Inside Part III. A newspaper is banned. It files a writ petition under Article 32 for its freedom of speech. The Court can order relief.

Inside Part IV. A citizen files a petition saying the State has not yet secured a living wage for all workers under Article 43. The Court cannot order the State to do so on that ground alone.

Common mistakes

Saying Directive Principles are useless because they are unenforceable. Article 37 calls them fundamental in the governance of the country.
Saying Article 37 stops the government from acting on them. It stops only the courts from enforcing them.
Saying Champakam allowed the State to use Article 46 against Article 29(2). It decided the opposite.
Saying the Directive Principles bind individuals. They are addressed to the State.
Saying the Constitution lists "Directive Principles" under Part III. They are in Part IV.

Apply it

Problem

A trade union files a writ petition in the High Court. It asks for an order that the State must secure a living wage for all agricultural workers. The union relies only on Article 43. Will the petition succeed?

Issue. Can a court order the State to carry out a Directive Principle?

Rule. Article 37 says the provisions of Part IV are not enforceable by any court. A Directive Principle cannot override a Fundamental Right (Champakam).

Application. Article 43 is in Part IV, and the union claims nothing else. The petition rests only on a Directive Principle.

Conclusion. The petition fails on that ground. The union could instead challenge a specific law or action under a Fundamental Right, or rely on a statute such as a minimum wage law.

Leading case laws

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
Facts. Madras fixed seats in medical and engineering colleges by community. Students shut out by the order challenged it.

Principle. The Directive Principles must conform to, and run as subsidiary to, the Fundamental Rights. Article 46 could not save an order that broke Article 29(2).

Why it matters. It is the first ruling on a clash between Part III and Part IV and led to Article 15(4).
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Facts. A challenge to the 42nd Amendment, which put the Directive Principles above Articles 14 and 19.

Principle. Parts III and IV together are the core of the Constitution. To give absolute primacy to one over the other disturbs its harmony.

Why it matters. It shows that Part IV has weight even though no court enforces it.

How to write this answer in the exam

5-mark answer

Name Part IV, Articles 36 to 51.
Quote the three parts of Article 37.
Say why courts cannot enforce them.
Give the Champakam rule in one line.

10-mark answer

Define the Directive Principles and Article 36.
Explain Article 37 in three parts.
Give the origin and the reason for unenforceability.
Table of differences from Fundamental Rights.
Champakam, Article 15(4) and Minerva Mills.
Conclusion: a guide to the State, not a right.

Key points to remember

Part IV, Articles 36 to 51, holds the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Article 37: not enforceable by any court, yet fundamental in governance, and the State must apply them in making laws.
Article 36 gives "State" the same meaning as in Part III.
Champakam (1951): the Directive Principles run subsidiary to Fundamental Rights.
The First Amendment added Article 15(4) after Champakam.
Minerva Mills (1980): Parts III and IV together form the conscience of the Constitution.

Quick self-test

1. Which Article says the Directive Principles are not enforceable by any court?

Article 37.

2. What does Article 36 do?

It gives "the State" in Part IV the same meaning as in Part III.

3. What did Champakam hold about Article 46 and Article 29(2)?

Article 46 could not override Article 29(2). The Directive Principles run subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights.