Updated: August 2026 · GS-II Polity & Constitution
Articles 36, 37 and 38 The Opening of Part IV — DPSP
Part IV of the Constitution — the Directive Principles of State Policy, Articles 36 to 51 — opens with three provisions that set its entire frame. Article 36 says who is bound. Article 37 says how far they bind. Article 38 states the goal they serve. Bare text first, then the explanation, then the amendments — one Article at a time.
Article 36
Definition of "State"
Article 37
Non-justiciable, yet fundamental
Article 38
Welfare state · social order
Only amendment here
Art. 38(2) · 44th CAA, 1978
Part IV in One Line
- Articles 36 to 51. Borrowed from the Constitution of Ireland (1937), which took the idea from the Spanish Constitution.
- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar called them "novel features" of the Constitution.
- Granville Austin described the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles together as the "conscience of the Constitution".
- They are instruments of instructions to the State — enforceable at the ballot box, not in a court.
Article 36 — Definition
Explanation
- Article 36 is a definition clause, not a directive. It creates no obligation of its own.
- It says that wherever Part IV uses the word "the State", that word carries the same meaning as in Article 12 of Part III.
- Effect: the same set of bodies that must respect Fundamental Rights are the bodies expected to implement Directive Principles. One definition, two Parts.
- The phrase "unless the context otherwise requires" leaves room for a different reading where a particular Article demands it — but in practice the Article 12 meaning applies throughout.
Who is "the State" under Article 12, read into Article 36?
"The State" · Four Limbs
1 · The Government and Parliament of India
The Union executive and the Union legislature.
2 · The Government and the Legislature of each State
The State executive and the State legislature.
3 · All local authorities
Municipalities, panchayats, district boards, improvement trusts and similar bodies.
4 · Other authorities
Within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India — statutory and non-statutory bodies, including public corporations and instrumentalities of the State.
Amendments to Article 36
None
Article 36 has never been amended. It stands today exactly as adopted on 26 November 1949 and commenced on 26 January 1950.
📌 Exam point on Article 36
The judiciary is generally not "the State" when discharging its judicial functions, though it is when acting in an administrative or rule-making capacity. Since Article 36 imports Article 12 wholesale, this qualification carries into Part IV as well.
Article 37 — Application of the Principles Contained in This Part
Explanation — the Article has three limbs
Limb 1
Not enforceable by any court. No writ lies to compel the State to implement a Directive Principle. A citizen cannot approach a court under Article 32 or 226 saying "Article 38 has not been implemented".
Limb 2
Nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country. Non-enforceable does not mean unimportant. The word "fundamental" is used deliberately — the same word as in "Fundamental Rights".
Limb 3
It shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. A positive constitutional duty is cast on the legislature and executive — a duty of political and moral obligation, sanctioned by the electorate rather than by a court.
Non-justiciable, but not without legal effect
✕ WHAT A COURT CANNOT DO
- Issue a writ directing implementation of a DPSP
- Strike down a law merely because it violates a DPSP
- Award compensation for non-implementation
✓ WHAT COURTS ACTUALLY DO WITH DPSPs
- Use them to interpret Fundamental Rights — notably reading DPSPs into Article 21
- Use them to test the reasonableness of a restriction under Article 19
- Treat a law implementing a DPSP as presumptively in public interest
- Rely on them to sustain Article 31C protection for laws giving effect to Articles 39(b) and (c)
The Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles story
Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
FR prevail; DPSP subsidiary → 25th Amendment (1971)
Article 31C inserted → Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Basic structure → 42nd Amendment (1976)
31C widened to all DPSPs → Minerva Mills (1980)
Balance is basic structure
FR prevail; DPSP subsidiary → 25th Amendment (1971)
Article 31C inserted → Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Basic structure → 42nd Amendment (1976)
31C widened to all DPSPs → Minerva Mills (1980)
Balance is basic structure
| Milestone | What it settled |
|---|---|
| State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) | The first ruling on the conflict. DPSPs must run subsidiary to Fundamental Rights; a law violating an FR cannot be saved by a DPSP. This decision directly prompted the First Constitutional Amendment, 1951, which inserted Article 15(4). |
| Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) | Held Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights to give effect to Directive Principles. This position was reversed by the 24th Amendment, 1971 and by Kesavananda Bharati. |
| 25th Amendment Act, 1971 — Article 31C inserted | Gave immunity from Articles 14 and 19 to laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and 39(c). Its second limb — barring judicial review of the legislative declaration — was struck down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973). |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) | Upheld the first part of Article 31C. Established the basic structure doctrine and moved the relationship from subordination towards harmony. |
| 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 | Widened Article 31C to cover laws implementing any Directive Principle, not just 39(b) and (c). Also added four new DPSPs — Articles 39(f) as amended, 39A, 43A and 48A. |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) | Struck down the 42nd Amendment's expansion of Article 31C. Held that the balance and harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is itself part of the basic structure. Directive Principles cannot be used to destroy Fundamental Rights, nor the reverse. |
| Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (2024) | A nine-judge Bench, judgment dated 5 November 2024. Held unanimously that Article 31C, as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati, survives in its original form even after the 42nd Amendment's expansion was struck down in Minerva Mills. On Article 39(b), it held by majority — with Justice Nagarathna partially dissenting and Justice Dhulia dissenting — that not all privately owned property is a "material resource of the community", and that courts may examine whether a law genuinely gives effect to Article 39(b). |
Amendments to Article 37
None
Article 37 itself has never been amended. Its text is unchanged since 1950.
But note the distinction examiners test: the operation of Article 37 was altered indirectly — by the 25th Amendment (1971) and the 42nd Amendment (1976) through Article 31C, and by the judicial rebalancing in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980). The Article was untouched; its constitutional weight was not.
But note the distinction examiners test: the operation of Article 37 was altered indirectly — by the 25th Amendment (1971) and the 42nd Amendment (1976) through Article 31C, and by the judicial rebalancing in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980). The Article was untouched; its constitutional weight was not.
Article 38 — State to Secure a Social Order for the Promotion of Welfare of the People
Explanation — Article 38(1)
- The goal: a welfare State. The State must strive to promote the welfare of the people.
- The method: by securing and protecting a social order — not by isolated schemes, but by shaping the order itself.
- The content of that order: justice — social, economic and political. The same triad appears in the Preamble, in the same sequence.
- The reach: that justice must inform all the institutions of the national life — legislature, executive, judiciary, markets, family, workplace.
- The qualifier: "as effectively as it may" — an acknowledgment of resource constraints. The duty is one of best endeavour, not guaranteed result.
Explanation — Article 38(2)
- Narrows the focus from welfare generally to inequality specifically — signalled by the words "in particular".
- Two different verbs, two different standards: the State must "minimise" inequalities in income, but "eliminate" inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. Income disparity is to be reduced; disparity of status is to be ended.
- Extends beyond individuals to groups — expressly covering people "residing in different areas" (regional disparity) and "engaged in different vocations" (occupational disparity).
- This is the clearest textual expression of the socialist element in the Constitution, and it aligns Part IV with the word "socialist" inserted in the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment, 1976.
Amendments to Article 38
44th CAA
1978
1978
The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 — Section 9.
1. The existing Article 38 was renumbered as clause (1).
2. A new clause (2) was inserted after it.
3. The change took effect on 20 June 1979.
Why it matters: this is the only new Directive Principle added by the 44th Amendment. Compare with the 42nd Amendment, 1976, which added four — Articles 39(f) as amended, 39A, 43A and 48A.
1. The existing Article 38 was renumbered as clause (1).
2. A new clause (2) was inserted after it.
3. The change took effect on 20 June 1979.
Why it matters: this is the only new Directive Principle added by the 44th Amendment. Compare with the 42nd Amendment, 1976, which added four — Articles 39(f) as amended, 39A, 43A and 48A.
📌 The 44th Amendment link students miss
The same 44th Amendment that inserted Article 38(2) also removed the right to property from Part III — deleting Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, and relocating it as Article 300A, a constitutional but non-fundamental right. The two changes are connected: reducing the constitutional status of property made redistributive legislation easier, and Article 38(2) states the redistributive goal. Examiners like this pairing because it shows Part III and Part IV moving together.
Judicial use of Article 38
| Case | How Article 38 was used |
|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) | Article 38 was treated as expressing the constitutional goal of a welfare State, and used to argue that Part III and Part IV are complementary rather than competing. |
| D. S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) | On pension classification for government employees. The Court read Articles 38, 39 and 41 together to hold that an arbitrary cut-off date dividing pensioners violated Article 14 — a classic instance of a DPSP giving content to a Fundamental Right. |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) | Reaffirmed that goals such as those in Article 38 must be pursued without destroying Fundamental Rights; harmony between the two Parts is basic structure. |
| Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (1997) | Relied on Articles 38, 39 and 43 to extend protection to contract labour on abolition of the contract system, treating social justice as a constitutional objective binding on public corporations. |
| Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) | Read Articles 38, 39 and 46 with the Fifth Schedule to restrict transfer of tribal land in Scheduled Areas to non-tribals and to private mining companies. |
Articles 36–38 at a Glance — Mind Map
Part IV Opens · Articles 36 · 37 · 38
36 · What it doesDefinition clause · "the State" carries the Article 12 meaning into Part IV
36 · Four limbs of "State"Union Govt & Parliament · State Govt & Legislature · local authorities · other authorities
36 · AmendmentNever amended
37 · Three limbsNot enforceable by any court · nevertheless fundamental in governance · duty of the State in making laws
37 · The FR–DPSP arcChampakam (1951) → 31C via 25th CAA (1971) → Kesavananda (1973) → 42nd CAA (1976) → Minerva Mills (1980) → Property Owners (2024)
37 · AmendmentNever amended — but its operation was reshaped through Article 31C
38(1) · The goalWelfare of the people · a social order informed by social, economic and political justice · "as effectively as it may"
38(2) · The focusMinimise income inequality · eliminate inequality of status, facilities, opportunities · individuals and groups, areas, vocations
38 · Amendment44th CAA, 1978, s.9 — renumbered as (1), clause (2) inserted, w.e.f. 20 June 1979
Prelims Traps to Guard Against
- Articles 36 and 37 have never been amended. Only Article 38 among these three carries an amendment.
- Article 38(2) was added by the 44th Amendment, 1978 — not the 42nd. The 42nd added Articles 39A, 43A and 48A and amended 39(f).
- The 44th Amendment added exactly one new Directive Principle — Article 38(2).
- Article 38(2) took effect on 20 June 1979, not on the date the Act was passed in 1978.
- Article 36 defines "the State", it does not define "Directive Principles". It is a definition clause with no substantive direction.
- Article 37 says DPSPs are "fundamental in the governance of the country" — the exact phrase matters in statement-based questions.
- DPSPs are non-justiciable, not non-binding. Article 37 casts a positive duty on the State.
- Article 38(2) uses two different verbs — minimise for income, eliminate for status, facilities and opportunities.
- The 42nd Amendment's expansion of Article 31C was struck down in Minerva Mills (1980) — but the original Article 31C, covering only Articles 39(b) and (c), survives, as confirmed by the nine-judge Bench in 2024.
- DPSPs are borrowed from Ireland, which in turn drew on the Spanish Constitution.
Mains Angle
Question (GS-II, 10 marks, 150 words): "Article 37 makes the Directive Principles non-justiciable but not non-binding." Examine, with reference to the evolution of the relationship between Part III and Part IV.
Structure the answer around three pivots:
- The text of Article 37.
Three limbs — not enforceable by any court, yet fundamental in the governance of the country, with a duty on the State to apply them in making laws.
Sanction is political and electoral, not judicial. - The evolution of the relationship.
Champakam (1951): DPSPs subsidiary to FRs → First Amendment, 1951.
Article 31C via the 25th Amendment (1971), widened by the 42nd (1976), cut back in Minerva Mills (1980): harmony between Part III and Part IV is basic structure.
Property Owners Association (2024): the original Article 31C survives, but courts may test whether a law genuinely serves Article 39(b). - How DPSPs became legally effective indirectly.
Read into Article 21 — education, health, livelihood, clean environment.
Used to judge the reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19.
Converted into enforceable rights by amendment — Article 21A from Article 45, via the 86th Amendment, 2002.
Conclusion: Article 37 withheld the writ but not the obligation. The Directive Principles have become legally operative through interpretation and amendment rather than through direct enforcement — which is why Article 38's welfare goal has real constitutional traction despite being unenforceable on its own terms.
Key Takeaways
- Article 36 is a definition clause: "the State" in Part IV carries the same meaning as in Article 12 of Part III — Union Government and Parliament, State Governments and Legislatures, local authorities, and other authorities. Never amended.
- Article 37 has three limbs — DPSPs are not enforceable by any court, are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country, and it is the duty of the State to apply them in making laws. Never amended.
- Article 37's operation changed through Article 31C — inserted by the 25th Amendment (1971), widened by the 42nd (1976), and cut back in Minerva Mills (1980), which held that harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure.
- Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (5 November 2024), a nine-judge Bench, unanimously held that the original Article 31C survives, and by majority that not all private property is a "material resource of the community" under Article 39(b).
- Article 38(1) directs the State to secure a social order informed by social, economic and political justice — the Preamble's triad — "as effectively as it may".
- Article 38(2) was inserted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, Section 9, with effect from 20 June 1979 — the only new Directive Principle that amendment added. It requires the State to minimise income inequality and eliminate inequalities of status, facilities and opportunities, among individuals, groups, regions and vocations.
