Directive Principles of State Policy

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) of the Indian Constitution are given under Part IV of the Constitution, from the Article 36 to Article 51. They list the social and economic goals the government should work towards. Unlike Fundamental Rights, courts cannot force the government to follow them, but Article 37 says they are fundamental to governing the country. This article explains how the courts have dealt with the conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSP. It starts with landmark case of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, where Fundamental Rights were held to be stronger after this the case of Kesavananda Bharati, which led the birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine, and Minerva Mills, which struck down the widening of Article 31C and by creating the difference between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and after this 2024 decision came in the case of Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra it explained how far Article 31C applies today and still it apply. The article also shows how the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave DPSP real force by enforcing them to Article 21, as in Unni Krishnan case (education) and Olga Tellis (livelihood) so we can see the enforcement of DPSP through the Fundamental Rights. It also discusses laws that put DPSP into practice through the case laws, and the criticism that rights without court remedies are hard to enforce as the state do not participate actively. It concludes that DPSP are not directly enforceable but still guide how the Constitution is understood and still the Judiciary plays an active role by Enforcing the DPSP. Keywords: Directive Principles, Fundamental Rights, Basic Structure Doctrine, Article 31C, Article 21