Regarding the Directive Principles of State Policy, which one of the following statements is NOT correct?
- (a)It is the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
- (b)They are fundamental in governance of the country.
- (c)They impose a legal duty on the State.
- (d)They are merely instructions to the legislature and the executive.
Correct — C, They impose a legal duty on the State..
Article 37 says three things in one sentence: the provisions of Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court; they 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.
Option (c), They impose a legal duty on the State, contradicts the first clause. A duty that no court can enforce is a moral and political obligation.
Dr Ambedkar told the Constituent Assembly that a government ignoring the Principles would not answer for it in a court of law but would answer before the electorate.
The idea to carry away: the 'duty' in Article 37 is real but non-justiciable. The Constitution imposes it and, in the same breath, withholds the court's power to enforce it.
- (a)It is the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. — The statement is correct, so it cannot be the answer to a stem asking which one is NOT correct. It reproduces the closing clause of Article 37: 'it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.'
It would be the right pick for a stem asking what Article 37 requires of the State.
- (b)They are fundamental in governance of the country. — Also correct. The middle clause of Article 37 says the Principles are 'nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country'. The word 'nevertheless' ties this to the non-enforceability clause: fundamental in governance yet unenforceable in court are asserted together, not offered as alternatives.
It is the right answer to a stem asking how Article 37 ranks the Principles despite their non-enforceability.
- (d)They are merely instructions to the legislature and the executive. — Correct as a description. Dr Ambedkar told the Constituent Assembly that the Directive Principles were another name for the Instrument of Instructions issued under the Government of India Act, 1935, the difference being that these are addressed to the legislature and the executive.
The word 'merely' describes their form, not their weight. It is the right answer to a question on Ambedkar's characterisation of Part IV.
Justiciability. A justiciable provision, such as a Fundamental Right in Part III, can be taken to a court, which can strike down a violating law or issue a writ to enforce it.
A non-justiciable provision, such as a Directive Principle in Part IV, binds the State's conscience and its accountability to voters, but a court cannot compel the State to act on it.
Article 37 places the Directive Principles firmly in the second category while insisting they remain fundamental to governance.
Article 37 is the hinge on which Part IV turns. It settles the status of each Directive Principle that follows, from the welfare state under Article 38 to international peace under Article 51, by declaring them unenforceable and fundamental at the same time.
The same distinction drives the long argument between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Article 31C shields laws that give effect to certain Principles from challenge under Articles 14 and 19, and Minerva Mills (1980) made the balance between the two Parts a feature of the basic structure.
- The Directive Principles occupy Part IV of the Constitution, Articles 36 to 51.
- Article 37 states that the provisions of Part IV are not enforceable by any court.
- The same Article 37 calls the Principles fundamental in the governance of the country and makes it the duty of the State to apply them in making laws.
- Article 36 gives 'State' in Part IV the same meaning it has in Article 12 for Fundamental Rights.
- The idea of Directive Principles was taken from the Constitution of Ireland (1937).
- Dr B.R. Ambedkar compared the Principles to the Instrument of Instructions issued under the Government of India Act, 1935.
- Article 31C, inserted by the 25th Amendment (1971), shields laws giving effect to Articles 39(b) and 39(c) from challenge under Articles 14 and 19.
- In Minerva Mills (1980) the Supreme Court held the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles to be part of the basic structure.
- Granville Austin described the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles together as the 'Conscience of the Constitution'.
- The Fundamental Duties in Part IVA (Article 51A), added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, are likewise not enforceable through the courts.
Options (a) and (b) are clauses of Article 37 and (d) is Dr Ambedkar's description; (c) alone contradicts the non-enforceability clause.
- Reading 'duty of the State' in Article 37 as a legal duty: the same sentence declares the provisions unenforceable by any court, so the duty is answerable to the electorate, not to a judge.
- Treating 'not enforceable' and 'fundamental in governance' as contradictory: Article 37 joins them with 'nevertheless', so a statement affirming either one is correct.
- Confusing 'no court can enforce them' with 'no court may consider them': courts use the Principles to test the reasonableness of restrictions on Fundamental Rights and to interpret ambiguous provisions.
- Rejecting option (d) because 'merely instructions' sounds dismissive: the phrase is Dr Ambedkar's own description of their form, and the stem asks about correctness, not tone.
The idea is tested by quoting Article 37 with one clause reversed — 'enforceable by courts', 'legal duty', 'not fundamental' — inside a 'which is NOT correct' stem, or by pairing the non-enforceability clause with a second statement about socio-economic democracy or about Fundamental Rights being justiciable.
A second form asks for the Constituent Assembly framing (Instrument of Instructions) or for the case that settled the relationship between Part III and Part IV.
UPSC_2015_GS1_Q72015Same Article 37 clause: its statement 2, 'not enforceable by any court', is the clause that makes option (c) here wrong. It differs by pairing the clause with the socio-economic democracy idea and asking which statement is correct rather than which is not.
GEO_GS_2025_Q792025Same 'not correct' device on the same article, set in the UPSC Combined Geo-Scientist General Studies paper: its wrong statement says the Principles are 'enforceable by courts, therefore fundamental in governance', welding the two Article 37 clauses into a false causal link. It differs by also testing the content of Articles 38 and 39(d).
HPSC_2022_PRE_GSII_Q442022Tests the same justiciability contrast from the other side: its Statement II says the Directive Principles are made justiciable and its Statement I says Fundamental Rights are non-justiciable, each a reversal of the real position. It differs in being a two-statement true/false format pitting Part III against Part IV rather than a single-article check.
- practice — not a real PYQ
In the Constituent Assembly, the Directive Principles of State Policy were described as merely another name for the 'Instrument of Instructions' issued under the Government of India Act, 1935. Who drew this comparison?
- (a)Jawaharlal Nehru
- (b)Dr B.R. Ambedkar
- (c)K.M. Munshi
- (d)Sir B.N. Rau
Answerb — The comparison is Dr B.R. Ambedkar's, made in the Constituent Assembly in November 1948 while defending the Draft Constitution: the Principles are the Instrument of Instructions under a new name, now addressed to the legislature and the executive.Nehru is associated with the Objectives Resolution of December 1946; K.M. Munshi sat on the Drafting Committee; B.N. Rau was the Constitutional Adviser who prepared the initial draft.
The Instrument of Instructions comparison is recorded as Ambedkar's.
- practice — not a real PYQ
With reference to Article 37 of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements: 1. The provisions of Part IV are not enforceable by any court. 2. A court may not refer to the Directive Principles while deciding whether a law is constitutionally valid. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a)1 only
- (b)2 only
- (c)Both 1 and 2
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2
Answera — Statement 1 is the opening clause of Article 37.Statement 2 confuses non-enforceability with irrelevance: the Supreme Court uses the Directive Principles to test whether a restriction on a Fundamental Right is reasonable and to resolve ambiguity, and Article 31C expressly shields laws giving effect to Articles 39(b) and 39(c) from challenge under Articles 14 and 19.
Options (b) and (c) fail because statement 2 is wrong; option (d) fails because statement 1 is right.
- practice — not a real PYQ
In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court hold that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution?
- (a)State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
- (b)Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
- (c)Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- (d)Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Answerd — Minerva Mills (1980) struck down the 42nd Amendment's extension of Article 31C to the whole of Part IV, holding that the balance between Part III and Part IV is part of the basic structure.Champakam Dorairajan held that Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive Principles. Golaknath held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, even to implement Directive Principles.
Kesavananda Bharati laid down the basic structure doctrine and upheld the first part of Article 31C; the balance ruling itself belongs to Minerva Mills.