Home / Blog

Cases that made the Constitution · PSIR Paper I · GS Paper II

Why are the Directive Principles not enforceable in court, and do they matter?

No court can enforce them, and the Constitution calls them fundamental anyway. Here is why the framers wrote them that way, how the Supreme Court weighed them against the Fundamental Rights over thirty years, and how one of them became a right.

Short answer

Because the framers meant them as instructions to the legislature and the executive, not as rights a court could order: Article 37 says they “shall not be enforceable by any court” and yet are “fundamental in the governance of the country”. They matter because the State must apply them in making laws, because the Supreme Court has held since Minerva Mills (1980) that the balance between them and the Fundamental Rights is part of the basic structure, and because one of them, education, became a fundamental right in Article 21A (2002).

By 4 min read
Contents
  1. What does Article 37 say?
  2. Why did the framers make them unenforceable?
  3. Which prevails when they clash?
  4. Can a principle become a right?
  5. So do they matter?
  6. Using this in the exam
Terms used in this essay
Directive Principles
Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51): principles the State is to apply in governing and making laws.
Fundamental Rights
Part III of the Constitution: rights a person can go to court to enforce.
Justiciable
Able to be enforced by a court.
Basic structure
The features of the Constitution that, the Supreme Court has held since 1973, even an amendment cannot destroy.
Instrument of Instructions
Under the Government of India Act, 1935, the directions the British Crown issued to the Governor-General and the Governors on how to use their powers.

Part IV of the Constitution is a list of things the State should do, from securing a living wage to protecting the environment, and no citizen can take the State to court for failing to do them. It looks like a weakness. The record shows it was a choice, that the courts spent thirty years working out what it meant, and that the Constitution itself has since turned one of the principles into a right.

SyllabusPSIR Paper I, Salient Features: Directive Principles. GS Paper II: the Indian Constitution, its features and significant provisions.

What does Article 37 say?

Two things in one sentence. “The provisions contained in this Part 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.”

So the principles bind the State, but through the legislature and the government, not through the courts.

Why did the framers make them unenforceable?

Because they were meant as instructions. Introducing the Draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly on 4 November 1948, B. R. Ambedkar said the Directive Principles were “like the Instrument of Instructions which were issued to the Governor-General and to the Governors” under the Government of India Act, 1935. They were “merely another name for Instrument of Instructions”, with one difference: these were instructions to the legislature and the executive.

Not every member was satisfied. Critics in the Assembly pointed out that the old instructions had someone to see them carried out, the Central Government or the Secretary of State, and the new ones did not. The Constitution's answer is Article 37's second half: the duty sits with the State itself.

Ambedkar, 4 November 1948Directive Principles are “merely another name for Instrument of Instructions”: instructions to the legislature and the executive.

Which prevails when they clash?

First the rights, then a balance. In State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan (1951) the Supreme Court struck down a government order that allotted college seats by community, and said the Directive Principles “have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights”. Parliament answered the same year: the First Amendment added Article 15(4) to override the decision.

The contest moved on. In 1971 the 25th Amendment added Article 31C, which shielded laws giving effect to two principles, Article 39(b) and (c), from challenge under Articles 14 and 19. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the Court upheld that shield but struck down its second half, which had barred courts from asking whether a law really served those principles. In 1976 the 42nd Amendment widened Article 31C to every Directive Principle; in Minerva Mills (1980) the Court struck the widening down. Parts III and IV together form the core of the Constitution, it held, and the balance between them is an essential feature of its basic structure.

Rights and principles: how the balance moved A timeline across a line marked "the balance". Above it, events in which the Fundamental Rights prevailed; below it, events in which the Directive Principles did; on it, the balance. 1951, Champakam: principles yield to rights (rights). 1951, First Amendment: Art. 15(4) added (principles). 1971, 25th Amendment: Art. 31C: 39(b), (c) (principles). 1973, Kesavananda: 31C upheld in part (balance). 1976, 42nd Amendment: 31C for every principle (principles). 1980, Minerva Mills: the balance is basic (balance). 2002, 86th Amendment: education: Art. 21A (rights). In 2002 a principle, education, became a fundamental right. Fundamental Rights prevail Directive Principles prevail the balance 1951 Champakam principles yield to rights 1951 First Amendment Art. 15(4) added 1971 25th Amendment Art. 31C: 39(b), (c) 1973 Kesavananda 31C upheld in part 1976 42nd Amendment 31C for every principle 1980 Minerva Mills the balance is basic 2002 86th Amendment education: Art. 21A Rights and principles: how the balance moved A timeline across a line marked "the balance". Above it, events in which the Fundamental Rights prevailed; below it, events in which the Directive Principles did; on it, the balance. 1951, Champakam: principles yield to rights (rights). 1951, First Amendment: Art. 15(4) added (principles). 1971, 25th Amendment: Art. 31C: 39(b), (c) (principles). 1973, Kesavananda: 31C upheld in part (balance). 1976, 42nd Amendment: 31C for every principle (principles). 1980, Minerva Mills: the balance is basic (balance). 2002, 86th Amendment: education: Art. 21A (rights). In 2002 a principle, education, became a fundamental right. Rights prevail Principles prevail the balance 1951 · Champakam principles yield to rights 1951 · First Amendment Art. 15(4) added 1971 · 25th Amendment Art. 31C: 39(b), (c) 1973 · Kesavananda 31C upheld in part 1976 · 42nd Amendment 31C for every principle 1980 · Minerva Mills the balance is basic 2002 · 86th Amendment education: Art. 21A
How the balance moved. Above the line, the rights prevailed; below it, the principles; on it, the Court held the two in balance. In 2002 a principle crossed over and became a right.

Yes, by amendment. Free and compulsory education for children up to fourteen began as a Directive Principle. The 86th Amendment of 2002 inserted Article 21A: the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of six to fourteen years, in the manner the State may by law determine. Parliament passed that law, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, in 2009, and it came into force on 1 April 2010.

So do they matter?

Yes, in three ways the record shows. Article 37 makes applying them a duty of the State in making laws. Parliament has used them to defend its laws, as in Article 31C, and to amend the Constitution, as with education. And the Supreme Court weighs them against the rights rather than below them, as part of the basic structure. Other essays on this site show two more at work: Article 40, which the 73rd Amendment turned into compulsory panchayats, and Article 39(b) and (c), which echo Gandhi's trusteeship. An answer that uses them well gives the article, the case and the amendment.

Using this in PSIR and GS Paper II

Quote the article and name the case. Try these:

  1. PSIR Paper I, 15 marks. “Non-justiciable but fundamental.” Discuss the place of the Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution.
  2. GS Paper II, 250 words. Trace how the Supreme Court has reconciled the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, from Champakam to Minerva Mills.
  3. Prelims-style. Which amendment made free and compulsory education a fundamental right? (The 86th, 2002, Article 21A.)

An outline for the first.

  1. Article 37: not enforceable, yet fundamental, and a duty in law-making.
  2. Ambedkar: an Instrument of Instructions to the legislature and the executive.
  3. The courts: Champakam (1951), Article 31C and Kesavananda (1973), Minerva Mills (1980).
  4. A principle made a right: Article 21A and the RTE Act.
  5. Conclude: they matter through law-making, amendment and the courts' balance.

Practise: GS Paper II mock tests · Read: What did the 73rd Amendment make every state do? · Exam: UPSC Civil Services

Sources

is the founder of Mock Test Mitra. Spotted an error? Write to mocktestmitra@gmail.com. Corrections are made on this page and noted with the date.