Role of Judiciary as a Guardian under Art 37 of Indian Constitution

Article 37 of the Indian Constitution states that the provisions of Part IV, which contains the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), are fundamental in the governance of the country. While these principles are not enforceable by any court, they are declared to be fundamental in the governance of the country and it is the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. Despite their non-justiciable nature, the judiciary has played a significant role in acting as a guardian to ensure their implementation and harmony with the Constitution.

Role of Judiciary as a Guardian under Article 37:

1. Ensuring Harmonization of Fundamental Rights and DPSPs:
   • The judiciary has interpreted Fundamental Rights (Part III) and DPSPs (Part IV) to ensure harmony between them. Landmark judgments such as Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) emphasize that Parts III and IV of the Constitution are complementary to each other and together form the core of constitutional governance.
2. Guiding State Policies:
   • The judiciary, through its interpretations, has encouraged the State to formulate policies aligned with the Directive Principles. For example, in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court expanded the right to education under Article 21 by deriving support from Article 45, a DPSP promoting free and compulsory education.
3. Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
   • The judiciary has used PILs to enforce socio-economic rights inspired by the DPSPs. In cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the judiciary laid down guidelines to protect women from sexual harassment at workplaces, indirectly giving effect to DPSPs such as Article 39.
4. Interpretation to Promote Welfare Goals:
   • Courts have interpreted laws in the light of DPSPs to ensure the achievement of welfare goals. For example, in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the judiciary reinforced the importance of DPSPs in maintaining the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
5. Judicial Directions to Promote Principles:
   • The judiciary has directed the executive and legislature to implement specific policies in accordance with the DPSPs. In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court upheld labor rights based on Article 39.
6. Judiciary as a Moral Guardian:
   • While Article 37 makes the DPSPs non-enforceable, the judiciary has often treated them as a moral and constitutional directive, ensuring that the State does not ignore these principles. This ensures the social and economic justice envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

In conclusion, under Article 37, while the Directive Principles are not enforceable in a court of law, the judiciary has acted as a guardian and interpreter, ensuring their influence on governance, laws, and socio-economic policies, thereby upholding the spirit of the Constitution.