Article 37 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Here is a detailed explanation of Article 37 of the Constitution of India along with relevant case law:
🇮🇳 Article 37 – Application of the Directive Principles
📜 Text of Article 37:
“Application of the principles contained in this Part – The provisions contained in this Part (i.e., Part IV – Directive Principles of State Policy) shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein 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.”
🔍 Explanation of Article 37:
Article 37 refers to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) contained in Part IV (Articles 36 to 51) of the Constitution.
Not enforceable in court: This means citizens cannot claim DPSPs as a matter of right.
However, DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of India and must guide the state while making laws and policies.
This creates a moral and political obligation on the government to implement them.
⚖️ Important Case Laws Related to Article 37 & DPSPs:
🔹 1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
Facts: A caste-based reservation system for college admissions was challenged.
Held: Fundamental Rights prevail over DPSPs if there is any conflict.
DPSPs cannot override enforceable rights under Part III.
Led to the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect reservation laws.
🔹 2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Held: Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights even to implement DPSPs.
This was later overruled by Kesavananda Bharati.
🔹 3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Held: DPSPs and Fundamental Rights are complementary.
Parliament can amend the Constitution to implement DPSPs as long as it does not alter the Basic Structure.
🔹 4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
The Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment.
Balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Article 37 recognized as a constitutional directive for achieving socio-economic justice.
🔹 5. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)
Right to education was derived from Article 45 (DPSP).
Supreme Court interpreted that DPSPs can be used to expand the scope of Fundamental Rights.
🧾 Summary Table
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature | Not enforceable in court |
| Purpose | Guide the State in policymaking |
| Binding effect | Moral and constitutional obligation |
| Conflict with FR | FRs prevail in conflict (Champakam case) |
| Evolving status | Courts interpret FRs in harmony with DPSPs (Unni Krishnan, Kesavananda) |
✅ Key Takeaways
Article 37 gives moral authority to DPSPs, though they are not legally enforceable.
Over time, courts have used DPSPs to interpret and expand fundamental rights.
Good governance and social justice are expected to be achieved through the principles laid out in DPSPs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments