Directive Principles of State Policy and Their Relationship With Fundamental Rights

Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36 to 51, Part IV of the Constitution) are goals the State must apply when it makes laws, but Article 37 says no court can enforce them directly. Fundamental Rights in Part III can be enforced in court. The Supreme Court began by treating the directives as subordinate to the rights, and since Minerva Mills (1980) it has held that the balance between the two Parts is itself part of the basic structure.

This explainer is written for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for Constitutional Law papers, and for any reader who has heard the phrase "DPSP versus Fundamental Rights" and wants the actual position in 2026. The topic matters because it decides how far Parliament can go when a welfare law cuts into an individual right.

What does the constitutional text actually say?

Start every answer with Article 37. Its words are short and worth memorising: the provisions of Part IV "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."

That sentence has two halves, and good answers use both:

• Non-enforceable: a citizen cannot file a writ demanding that the State implement, say, a uniform civil code under Article 44.
• Fundamental in governance: the legislature is under a constitutional duty to apply these principles, and courts use them to interpret laws and to judge whether a restriction on a right is reasonable.

Part IV covers a wide spread of subjects. A few you should know by number: Article 39 (principles of policy, including clauses (b) and (c) on the distribution of material resources and preventing concentration of wealth), Article 39A (equal justice and free legal aid), Article 40 (village panchayats), Article 44 (uniform civil code), Article 45 (early childhood care and education), Article 48A (environment, forests and wildlife) and Article 50 (separation of judiciary from executive).

How did the Supreme Court first read the relationship?

The first major word came from Madras itself. In State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan, decided on 9 April 1951 by a seven judge bench, the State defended the Communal G.O., which allotted college seats by religion and caste. The Court struck it down. It held that the G.O. violated Article 29(2) and said that the directive principles "have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights."

So the early rule was simple: where a right and a directive clash, the right wins.

How did Article 31C change the picture?

Parliament pushed back. The sequence below is the one examiners expect you to know in order:

1. 1971, 25th Amendment: inserted Article 31C. A law giving effect to Article 39(b) or (c) could not be declared void for conflicting with Articles 14, 19 or 31, and courts could not question whether the law actually served that policy.
2. 1973, Kesavananda Bharati: a thirteen judge bench struck down the second part (the bar on judicial review) but upheld the first part.
3. 1976, 42nd Amendment: Section 4 widened Article 31C to protect laws giving effect to any directive principle, not only Article 39(b) and (c).
4. 1980, Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India: a five judge bench held Section 4 void because it gave Part IV absolute primacy over Part III.

The key line from Minerva Mills is this: "This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution." In the same paragraph of the majority opinion (delivered on 31 July 1980), Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud wrote that Parts III and IV "are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less important than the other."

How have directives shaped Fundamental Rights?

The relationship is not only about conflict. Courts have used Part IV to read content into Part III. In Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (decided 4 February 1993), the Supreme Court held that children up to the age of fourteen have a right to free education flowing from Article 21, read in the light of the directives on education. Parliament then passed the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, which inserted Article 21A (free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen), substituted Article 45 to deal with early childhood care below six, and added clause (k) to the Fundamental Duties in Article 51A.

That is a clean example for an exam: a non-enforceable directive became an enforceable right, first through interpretation and then through amendment.

What is the position in 2026?

The most recent authority is Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, decided on 5 November 2024 by a nine judge Constitution Bench. Two points from it belong in your notes:

• Article 31C survives. All nine judges held that once Minerva Mills struck down the 42nd Amendment's substitution, the unamended Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati) stood revived. So laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c) still have that shield against Articles 14 and 19.
• Article 39(b) is narrower than some earlier opinions suggested. The majority, written by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, held that not every item of private property is a "material resource of the community." Justice B.V. Nagarathna partly dissented and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented on this question.

Reports describe the split on Article 39(b) in slightly different ways, so read the official judgment before quoting a vote count.

How should you write about this in an exam?

Picture a second year student in Nagercoil facing a 15 mark question: "Discuss the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles." A structure that works:

1. Quote Article 37 and explain both halves.
2. Contrast justiciability: Article 32 and Article 226 enforce Part III; nothing enforces Part IV directly.
3. Trace the case law in order: Champakam Dorairajan (1951), Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Minerva Mills (1980).
4. Show harmony in action through Unni Krishnan (1993) and Article 21A.
5. End with the 2024 nine judge ruling on Article 31C and Article 39(b).

Get case names and years right. Examiners notice a wrong year faster than a missing paragraph.

Why does this matter outside the classroom?

Article 39A, on equal justice and free legal aid, is a directive that law students see working every week. If you want to watch a directive principle turn into practice, spend time at the college legal aid clinic, where students help residents understand their entitlements.

Sources

• Constitution of India, Part IV (constitutionofindia.net): list and headings of Articles 36 to 51.
• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (Supreme Court of India): judgment of 9 April 1951.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (Manupatra Academy): text of the 1980 judgment.
• Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 (india.gov.in): official text inserting Article 21A.
• Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (ESCR-Net): case summary of the 1993 decision.
• Nature of Private Property: Judgement Summary (Supreme Court Observer): summary of the 2024 nine judge ruling.