The Indian Constitution stands as a resilient and adaptable framework, designed to meet the evolving needs of the nation. It forms the bedrock of governance, promoting democratic principles while protecting fundamental rights. Central to this democratic system is the judiciary, which plays a crucial role in safeguarding individual liberties, maintaining the rule of law, and upholding the Constitution's authority. One notable feature of the Constitution is Article 37, which underscores the importance of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). While these principles are not directly enforceable in a court of law, they serve as guiding ideals for governance. The judiciary acts as their custodian, ensuring that the state works towards realizing these principles in harmony with constitutional mandates. This article delves into the judiciary’s function as a guardian under Article 37 and examines its influence on Indian society.

Decoding Article 37 of the Indian Constitution:

Article 37 serves as a link between the Fundamental Rights in Part III and the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in Part IV of the Indian Constitution. It states:
"The provisions contained in this Part (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."

This article underscores that while the DPSPs do not carry legal enforceability, they are essential for shaping the state's policies and legislation. It also places a significant responsibility on the judiciary to ensure that these principles are upheld within the broader context of constitutional governance and values.

Judiciary’s Role in Advancing DPSPs:

Despite their non-enforceable status, DPSPs form a cornerstone of India's constitutional architecture. These principles aim to create a framework of social justice, equality, and welfare. As the Constitution’s protector, the judiciary ensures that state actions align with these goals.

1. Interpretation of Laws through DPSPs:

The judiciary employs DPSPs as a guiding framework to interpret and validate legislative actions. While Article 37 prevents their direct enforcement, courts invoke these principles during judicial reviews to ensure laws uphold constitutional ideals.

For instance, in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court underscored the importance of DPSPs by establishing the "basic structure doctrine," ruling that the Constitution's essential features, including DPSPs, cannot be altered. This landmark judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s responsibility to protect constitutional values.

2. Judicial Activism and Expanding Rights:

Indian courts have actively embraced DPSPs through judicial activism, broadening their scope by integrating social justice into fundamental rights. Through progressive interpretations, courts have embedded principles of equality and welfare into enforceable rights.

A notable example is the Right to Education case (2002), where the Supreme Court interpreted Article 45 (free and compulsory education) to declare education a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court recognized education as pivotal for national progress and social equity, translating a DPSP into a tangible right.

3. Upholding Social Justice and Welfare:

The judiciary plays a pivotal role in safeguarding marginalized communities, ensuring that laws reflect the ethos of DPSPs. For instance, in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court invalidated constitutional amendments that jeopardized fundamental rights, emphasizing the integration of social justice and economic equality into governance. This approach highlights the judiciary's commitment to the DPSPs' vision of an inclusive society, prioritizing dignity and fairness for disadvantaged groups.

4. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a Mechanism:

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has become a powerful instrument for advancing the objectives of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). By empowering citizens to bring issues of collective concern before the judiciary, PILs allow courts to tackle socio-economic challenges and advocate for public welfare.

For instance, the judiciary has frequently relied on DPSPs in environmental cases, interpreting the right to life under Article 21 to encompass the right to a clean and sustainable environment. This approach reinforces the state's obligation to act in accordance with these guiding principles, fostering a balance between individual rights and societal welfare.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:

The judiciary plays a crucial balancing role, ensuring harmony between enforceable fundamental rights and non-enforceable DPSPs. While DPSPs guide the state toward long-term societal goals, courts ensure that these efforts do not infringe upon constitutional rights.

A landmark decision in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) demonstrated this balance. The Supreme Court recognized the third gender as a distinct category, addressing discrimination and inequality in alignment with DPSPs advocating justice and dignity.

Conclusion: Custodian of Social Justice-

The judiciary’s role under Article 37 is multifaceted, serving as both a guardian and promoter of the Directive Principles of State Policy. Though not legally enforceable, DPSPs profoundly influence the country's socio-economic policies. The judiciary ensures these principles shape governance through judicial review, progressive interpretations, and PILs, bridging the gap between fundamental rights and societal welfare. By safeguarding constitutional values and aligning state actions with DPSPs, the judiciary ensures the vision of justice, equality, and dignity envisioned by the Constitution's framers becomes a reality. This enduring role underscores its indispensable contribution to India's democratic framework.

Best Lawfirm in lucknow for Corporate Cases | Best Crimimal Lawyers Near me | Best Criminal Advocates Near me | Best Corporate Advocates Near Me | Best Criminal Lawyers in Lucknow High Court | Best Corporate Lawyers in Lucknow High Court | Best Lawfirm in Uttar Pradesh | Best Criminal Advocates in Uttar Pradesh | Best Advocates in Lucknow High Court | Best Lawyers in Lucknow High Court | Best Lawfirm in Lucknow High Court | Best Legal Advisor in Lucknow | Best Legal Consultant in Lucknow | Best lawfirm for legal Consultancy services in lucknow

 "Directive Principles of State Policy and Judicial Activism," Blog at Constitutional Law Society,(Dec. 10, 2024, 8:30 P.M.) www.constitutionallawsociety.com/directive-principles-judicial-activism.

 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225. https://saslawchambers.com

 Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178.

 Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.

 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438. https://saslawchambers.com