 Part IV of the Constitution of India contains The

Directive Principles of state policy

 These provisions contain hat may be called the
positive obligations upon the state
 This particular provision has been borrowed from
the Irish Constitution
 The logic behind these is that the political
democracy in a country like India will be useless
without economic empowerment, which is
necessary in a modern welfare state.
 These principles give directions to the legislature
and executive in India as regards the manner in
which they should exercise their power
 It is no use giving a fixed , rigid form to something
which is not rigid, which is fundamentally changing
and must, having regard to the circumstances and
the times, keep on changing. It is, therefore, no
use saying that the directive principles have no
value. In my judgment, the directive principles have
a great value, for they law down that our ideal is
economic democracy. Because we did not want
merely a parliamentary form of government to be
instituted through the various mechanisms
provided in the Constitution, without any direction
as to what our economic ideal or as to what our
social order ought to be, we deliberately included
the Directive Principles in our Constitution.
 I think, if the friends who are agitated over the
question bear in mind what I have said just now
that our object in framing the Constitution is
really two fold: i) to lay down the form of
political democracy, and (ii) to lay down that
our ideal is economic democracy and also to
prescribe that every Government whatever it is
in power, shall strive to bring about economic
democracy, much of the misunderstanding
under which most members are laboring will
disappear(Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in CAD)
 The DPSP are not enforceable in a Court of law
and hence therefore one cannot move to the
Court for their implementation
 They are Fundamental in the governance of the
Country and it shall be the duty of the State to
apply these principles in making laws
 Some people have emphasised on the point that
since DPSP cannot be enforced in a Court their
non observance cannot entail any legal
consequences.
 In State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan
 The Court invalidated a Madras Government
order which fixed quota for admissions for
different communities under Article 46 on the
ground that “DPSP have to run as subsidiary to
the Chapter on Fundamental Rights”
 Therefore the earliest approach of the Court was
to give primacy to FR over the DPSP
 However, just after the Dorairajan case the
approach of the Court started to move away from
the strict position taken by it in that case, thus in
State of Bombay vs. F.N. Balsara the Court relied
upon Article 47 while upholding the prohibition on
liquor as a reasonable restriction in the interest of
Public

Similarly, in Re:Kerala Education Bill CJ Das while

reaffirming the primacy of FR over DPSP called for
harmonious interpretation of both.
“Nevertheless , in determining the scope & ambit of
FR relied upon by or on behalf of any person or
body, the Court may not entirely ignore these DPSP
laid down in part IV of the Constitution but should
adopt the principle of harmonious construction
and should attempt to give effect to both as much
as possible”
Continuing with the same attitude the Court has
observed that there is no conflict on the whole
between FR and DPSP and in case of :
Chandra Bhavan Boarding & Lodging Bangalore Vs.
State of Mysore said that they are “Complementary
and supplementary to each other”
 Thus in : Golaknath vs State of Punjab the Court
emphasised that FR and DPSP form an ‘integrated
system’
 Finally, in Keshavanada Bharti case the Court
talked about harmony between the two as a basic
feature of the Constitution
 First amendment Act added Article 31-A and 31-B
which had the effect of making laws for land
acquisition etc immune from challenge on the
ground of them violating Article 13 and adding of
9th Schedule to Constitution.
 Thus , certain DPSP were given supremacy over the
FR which was upheld by the Court
 However, when the whole body of DPSP was sought
to be given primacy over FR by adding Article 31-C
through 25th Amendment, though the amendment
was upheld but a condition was added that it
cannot violate basic structure of the Constitution
 In Minerva Mills vs. Union of India the position was
settled and the Court through Chandrachud ,C.J.
observed: “FR are not an end in themselves but are
a means to an end” further he noted that FR and
DPSP constitute the core of commitment to social
revolution and they together are the conscience of
the Constitution. The Constitution is found on the
bedrock of the balance between the two.Thus the
Court concluded that “To give absolute primacy to
one over the other would disturb the harmony of
the Constitution which is an essential feature of the
Constitution. Thus it struck down 42nd amendment
which amended Article 31 C