(a) "The provisions of the Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable by any court, but they are fundamental in the…

(a) The constitutional status of the Directive Principles

• Article 37: the Directive Principles in Part IV are not enforceable by any court, but they are fundamental in the governance of the country, and it is the duty of the State to apply them in making laws. They were inspired by the Irish Constitution.
• Purpose: they set out the goals of a welfare State, namely social, economic and political justice (Art 38).

From conflict to harmony

• Early subordination: in State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Directive Principles were held subordinate to Fundamental Rights. The first response was the First Amendment (1951).
• Harmonious construction: In re Kerala Education Bill (1957) called for harmonious construction of Parts III and IV.
• The property-rights battle:
• Golak Nath v State of Punjab (1967) restricted amendments to Fundamental Rights;
• the 25th Amendment inserted Art 31C, protecting laws giving effect to Art 39(b)–(c), which Kesavananda Bharati (1973) upheld in part;
• the 42nd Amendment (1976) extended Art 31C to all Directive Principles.
• ***Minerva Mills v Union of India* (1980): the extension was struck down. The balance between Parts III and IV** is part of the basic structure, and the two are "the two wheels of a chariot".
• ***Property Owners Association v State of Maharashtra* (2024):** a nine-judge bench held that not every privately owned resource is a "material resource of the community" under Art 39(b).

The Government's role: achievements

• Economic justice:
• land reforms and the abolition of zamindari (Art 39(b)–(c));
• equal pay (Art 39(d)), through the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, now the Code on Wages, 2019;
• the four Labour Codes were brought into force in November 2025.
• Right to work and social security:
• MGNREGA, 2005 (now succeeded by the VB-G RAM G Act, 2025) (Art 41);
• maternity benefits (Art 42);
• minimum wages and a living wage (Art 43).
• Education and nutrition:
• the 86th Amendment and the RTE Act, 2009 (Art 45, now early childhood care);
• the National Food Security Act, 2013 and POSHAN (Art 47).
• Village self-government: the 73rd Amendment on Panchayati Raj (Art 40).
• Free legal aid: the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Art 39A).
• Separation of the judiciary from the executive: the CrPC, 1973 (Art 50).
• Protection of the environment: the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Art 48A, inserted in 1976).
• Weaker sections: reservation and welfare for SCs, STs and EWS (Art 46), for example through the 103rd Amendment.
• Judicial support through Art 21:
• livelihood (Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985));
• health (Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of WB (1996));
• equal pay (Randhir Singh v Union of India (1982));
• protection of cattle (State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005), Art 48).

Critical examination

• Implementation gaps:
• inequality and concentration of wealth persist, despite Art 39(c);
• malnutrition remains high (NFHS-5: about 35% of under-five children stunted);
• the quality of education lags behind access.
• Selective fulfilment:
• the Uniform Civil Code (Art 44) remains unrealised nationally, although Uttarakhand enacted one in 2024;
• prohibition (Art 47) is patchy;
• the promise of living wages and participation of workers in management (Art 43A) is weak.
• Dependence on resources and politics: non-justiciability lets governments cite fiscal limits. Welfare often takes the form of schemes rather than rights-based laws.
• Assessment:
• the Directive Principles have guided a vast body of legislation, and courts have read many of them into Art 21;
• fuller realisation requires rights-based statutes, fiscal commitment and cooperative federalism, since many subjects lie with the States.

(b) Framework

• Constitutional basis: Art 39A (equal justice and free legal aid), read with Arts 14 and 21.
• The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987:
• establishes NALSA at the national level, State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) (s.6), District Authorities (s.9) and Taluk Committees (s.11A);
• under s.7, the SLSA gives effect to NALSA's policies, provides legal services, conducts Lok Adalats, and undertakes preventive and strategic legal aid programmes;
• under s.12(c), every woman and child is entitled to free legal services, regardless of income.

Legal literacy

• Outreach:
• legal literacy clubs in schools and colleges;
• legal awareness camps in villages;
• para-legal volunteers, trained from the community;
• legal aid clinics in villages, jails and Juvenile Justice Boards (NALSA (Legal Aid Clinics) Regulations, 2011).
• Campaigns: awareness campaigns on laws such as the POCSO Act, the Domestic Violence Act and the PCPNDT Act, using radio, street plays and helplines (15100).
• Resolving disputes: Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats for public utility services (s.22B) resolve disputes without cost.

Rights of women

• Legal aid and representation: free legal aid and counsel in matrimonial, maintenance, domestic violence and dowry matters, with coordination with protection officers under the DV Act, 2005.
• Compensation for victims: SLSAs and DLSAs decide victim compensation under CrPC s.357A (BNSS s.396) and the NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes (2018), framed at the Supreme Court's direction in Nipun Saxena v Union of India (2018).
• Trafficking: assistance to victims of trafficking under the NALSA scheme (2015), including rescue, rehabilitation and legal representation.
• Case law: Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v Union of India (1995) recognised legal assistance for rape survivors from the stage of the police station.

Rights of children

• Children in conflict with law: the NALSA (Child Friendly Legal Services to Children and their Protection) Scheme, 2015 provides legal aid lawyers at Juvenile Justice Boards. It covers children in conflict with law, and legal support for children in need of care and protection.
• Child victims under POCSO: SLSAs provide support persons, legal representation and interim compensation, under the POCSO Rules, 2020.
• Wider child-rights work: campaigns against child marriage and child labour, and monitoring of child care institutions.

Evaluation

• Achievements: SLSAs have expanded access through Lok Adalats, which settle crores of cases, and through camps and clinics.
• Weaknesses:
• awareness of the entitlement to free legal aid remains low;
• legal aid lawyers are often poorly paid and of uneven quality;
• rural outreach is thin.
• Improvements: NALSA's Legal Aid Defence Counsel System (2022) and technology, including tele-law and online Lok Adalats, are improving delivery.

(c) Meaning

• Montesquieu's doctrine: as formulated by Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws, 1748), liberty is endangered if legislative, executive and judicial powers are combined in the same person or body. Each organ should therefore:
• be exercised by different persons;
• not exercise the functions of the others;
• not control the others.
• Checks and balances: the US Constitution adopts a relatively strict separation, tempered by checks and balances.

Can strict separation work in a parliamentary system?

• No: strict separation is impossible, because the organs are fused:
• the executive (the Council of Ministers) is drawn from, and responsible to, the legislature (Art 75);
• the executive legislates through ordinances (Arts 123, 213) and delegated legislation;
• the legislature performs judicial functions in impeachment and removal of judges, and punishes for breach of privilege;
• the judiciary makes rules (Art 145), supervises subordinate courts, and fills legislative gaps through guidelines (Vishaka (1997)).

The Indian position in case law

• ***Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab* (1955): the Constitution does not recognise the doctrine in its absolute rigidity**, but the functions of the different organs are sufficiently differentiated.
• ***Kesavananda Bharati* (1973) and *Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain* (1975): separation of powers is part of the basic structure**. Parliament could not decide an election dispute itself (Art 329A(4) was struck down).
• ***State of TN v State of Kerala* (Mullaperiyar, 2014): a legislature cannot directly overrule a judicial decision**. It may only remove the basis of the decision.
• ***Madras Bar Association v Union of India* (2014 onwards): transferring judicial functions to tribunals controlled by the executive violates separation of powers and judicial independence. The Court has repeatedly struck down provisions of tribunal laws, most recently in 2025**.
• ***Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v Chander Hass* (2008) and *Asif Hameed v State of J&K* (1989):** the judiciary must not encroach on legislative or executive policy (judicial restraint).
• ***Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar* (2017): repeated re-promulgation of ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution**. The ordinance power cannot substitute for legislation.
• ***Special Reference No. 1 of 2025* (opinion of November 2025):** the Supreme Court held that courts cannot impose timelines on Governors or the President for assent to Bills, or treat Bills as "deemed" assented. It reasoned from the separation of functions.

Conclusion

• Functional separation with checks and balances: India follows functional separation combined with checks and balances, not strict separation.
• Safeguards of the core:
• judicial review (Arts 13, 32, 226);
• an independent judiciary (Art 50; security of tenure);
• bars on discussing judges' conduct in the legislature (Arts 121, 211);
• bars on courts questioning the validity of legislative proceedings (Arts 122, 212).
• The key principle: what the Constitution forbids is one organ usurping the essential functions of another.