Articles 36 and 37 establish the basic constitutional framework of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Article 36 defines the term "State" for Part IV.
Article 37 explains the enforceability and importance of the Directive Principles.
Article 36 states that:
"State" has the same meaning as in Part III.
Therefore, the definition of State used for Fundamental Rights under:
Article 12
also applies to DPSP.
Under Article 12, the term State includes:
Therefore, DPSP are relevant to the actions of various constitutional and public authorities.
Article 36 establishes that DPSP are not merely instructions to:
The Union Government
They provide constitutional guidance to the broader:
State
as constitutionally defined.
Article 36 → State for DPSP = State under Article 12
Article 37 establishes three important points about DPSP:
DPSP:
Shall not be enforceable by any court.
Therefore, courts cannot ordinarily issue an order simply requiring the State to implement a Directive Principle.
Despite being non-justiciable, DPSP are:
Fundamental in the governance of the country.
This gives them substantial constitutional importance.
It is the:
Duty of the State
to apply these principles while:
Making laws
and:
Formulating policies.
This is one of the most important UPSC distinctions.
DPSP are:
Non-justiciable
but they are still:
Constitutional provisions
contained in:
Part IV
Therefore:
Non-justiciable ≠ Non-constitutional
and:
Non-justiciable ≠ Unimportant
The Constitution-makers recognised that many DPSP involve:
Therefore, immediate judicial enforcement was considered inappropriate.
The State was given:
Policy flexibility
while still being constitutionally directed towards these objectives.
Article 37 requires the State to apply DPSP in:
Making laws
This means Parliament and State Legislatures should consider DPSP when designing legislation.
Examples include laws and policies relating to:
DPSP are also relevant to:
Executive policy
Governments can use them as constitutional guidance when designing:
No.
Although courts cannot directly enforce DPSP, they can consider them while:
Therefore:
DPSP are non-justiciable but constitutionally relevant to judicial interpretation.
The relationship between Part III and Part IV has evolved over time.
In:
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan — 1951
the Supreme Court gave priority to Fundamental Rights where a direct conflict existed.
The Supreme Court increasingly emphasised:
Harmony and balance
between Fundamental Rights and DPSP.
Important cases include:
Kesavananda Bharati — 1973
and:
Minerva Mills — 1980
In:
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
the Supreme Court emphasised that the Constitution seeks a balance between:
Fundamental Rights
and:
Directive Principles
The Court rejected an approach that would give one part of the Constitution unlimited superiority over the other.
Minerva Mills → FR + DPSP = Harmony and Balance
DPSP have indirectly influenced the expansion of Fundamental Rights.
For example:
Equal justice + Free legal aid
↓
Supports meaningful access to justice.
Environmental protection
↓
Influenced the development of environmental protections under Article 21.
Public health
↓
Supports the broader interpretation of the right to a dignified life.
| Article 36 | Article 37 |
|---|---|
| Defines State | Defines constitutional status of DPSP |
| Refers to Article 12 | Establishes non-justiciability |
| Applies Part III definition | Declares DPSP fundamental in governance |
| Identifies who is guided by DPSP | Directs State to apply DPSP |
36 → Who
37 → Status
Part III
↓
Generally enforceable
↓
Courts can provide remedies.
Part IV
↓
Non-justiciable
↓
Courts cannot directly enforce them.
But both are:
Constitutional provisions
and together contribute to the constitutional vision.
Article 37 gives constitutional importance to the State's responsibility to pursue the objectives contained in Part IV.
These objectives support India's:
Welfare-State orientation
including:
DPSP help define what the Constitution expects from a democratic State.
Democracy is not limited to:
Elections + Representation
The Constitution also seeks:
Social justice + Economic justice + Human welfare
DPSP provide the constitutional direction for achieving these goals.
Strengthened several DPSP provisions and inserted:
Strengthened the emphasis on reducing inequalities through:
Article 38
Changed Article 45 to focus on:
Early childhood care and education
Definition of State for Part IV
Constitutional status of DPSP
No
Yes
Yes
State policy and law-making
Article 12
"Article 36 contains a separate definition of State."
False
It adopts the meaning of:
Article 12
"DPSP are not enforceable because they are not part of the Constitution."
False
They are contained in:
Part IV
"Article 37 makes DPSP legally irrelevant."
False
They are fundamental in the governance of the country.
"Courts can directly order the government to implement every DPSP."
False
They are non-justiciable.
"Article 37 prevents courts from ever referring to DPSP."
False
Courts may use DPSP as an aid to constitutional interpretation.
"Article 36 applies only to the Union Government."
False
The definition of State is the broader Article 12 definition.
"Although Directive Principles are non-justiciable, Article 37 gives them considerable constitutional significance. Discuss."
Articles 36–37 establish the foundational framework of DPSP. While Article 37 makes them non-justiciable, it simultaneously declares them fundamental in the governance of the country.
Article 36
→ State has same meaning as Article 12
Article 37
→ Non-justiciable
→ Fundamental in governance
→ Duty of State to apply them
Practical significance
→ Legislation
→ Public policy
→ Welfare programmes
→ Constitutional interpretation
Judicial evolution
→ Champakam Dorairajan
→ Kesavananda Bharati
→ Minerva Mills
Articles 36 and 37 establish a deliberate constitutional balance: DPSP are protected from direct judicial enforcement but remain essential constitutional directions shaping legislation, governance and the pursuit of social and economic justice.
