The Role of the Judiciary as Guardian under Article 37 of the Indian Constitution

Introduction

The Indian constitution is the supreme law of the land, which lays down the framework for the governance of the country. It consists of various parts, such as Part III (Fundamental Rights), Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), and Part V (The Union). Among these, Part IV is a unique feature of the Indian constitution, which contains a set of guidelines for the state to follow in making laws and policies for the welfare of the people.

Article 37 of the constitution states that the principles in Part IV are not enforceable by any court, but are fundamental in the governance of the country and the duty of the state to apply them in making laws. These principles include, among others, securing a social order based on justice, promoting the welfare of all sections of society, protecting the environment, ensuring equal pay for equal work, and providing free and compulsory education for children.

However, article 37 also implies that these principles are not justiciable, meaning that they cannot be claimed as rights by the citizens or enforced by the courts. This raises a question: how can these principles be implemented and realized in practice? Who will ensure that the state does not violate or neglect these principles? Who will safeguard the interests of the people and uphold the spirit of the Constitution?

The answer lies in the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the constitution and the protector of human rights. The judiciary is one of the three organs of the state, along with the legislature and the executive, which have the power to interpret and apply the Constitution. The judiciary also has the power to review and strike down any law or action of the state that is inconsistent with or violates any provision of the Constitution. This power is known as judicial review.

The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court and the High Courts, has played a vital role in giving effect to Article 37 and ensuring that the directive principles are not ignored or undermined by the state. The judiciary has done so by adopting various approaches and techniques, such as expanding the scope and meaning of fundamental rights, harmonizing fundamental rights and directive principles, invoking inherent powers of writ jurisdiction, issuing guidelines and directions to fill legislative gaps, and developing new doctrines and principles to protect constitutional values.

In this article, we will discuss how the judiciary has interpreted and applied Article 37 in various cases, and how it has acted as a guardian under Article 37 of the Indian constitution.

Expanding the Scope and Meaning of Fundamental Rights

One of the ways in which the judiciary has given effect to Article 37 is by expanding the scope and meaning of fundamental rights, especially Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The judiciary has held that Article 21 is not merely a negative right that prohibits deprivation of life or liberty by law, but also a positive right that imposes an obligation on the state to ensure a dignified and meaningful life for every person. The judiciary has also read into Article 21 various aspects and dimensions that are derived from or related to directive principles, such as the right to health, education, livelihood, clean environment, food, shelter, and privacy. By doing so, the judiciary has made these aspects justiciable and enforceable by courts, thereby giving teeth to article Article 37.

Expanding the Scope and Meaning of Fundamental Rights

Another way in which the judiciary has given effect to Article 37 is by harmonizing fundamental rights and directive principles, whenever there is a conflict or tension between them. The judiciary has held that fundamental rights and directive principles are not mutually exclusive or antagonistic, but complementary and supplementary to each other. They are both essential for achieving the goals of social justice and human welfare enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution. Therefore, whenever possible, the judiciary has tried to reconcile and balance both sets of provisions, by giving a liberal interpretation of fundamental rights and a narrow interpretation of directive principles. The judiciary has also held that if a law is made to give effect to a directive principle, it will not be invalid on the ground that it infringes a fundamental right, provided it does not violate or abrogate any essential feature or core content of that right.

Invoking Inherent Powers of Writ Jurisdiction

A third way in which the judiciary has given effect to Article 37 is by invoking its inherent powers of writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the constitution. These articles empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue writs, orders, or directions to any person or authority, including the state, for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. The judiciary has used these powers to issue various kinds of writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to protect the rights and interests of the people and to ensure that the state acts in accordance with the constitution and the law. The judiciary has also used these powers to issue guidelines and directions to fill legislative gaps or to supplement existing laws when the state has failed or neglected to implement the directive principles or to address a matter of public importance or urgency.

Developing New Doctrines and Principles to Protect Constitutional Values

A fourth way in which the judiciary has given effect to Article 37 is by developing new doctrines and principles to protect constitutional values and to prevent the abuse or misuse of power by the state. Some of these doctrines and principles are:

·         The doctrine of basic structure, which holds that the basic structure or essence of the constitution, including the directive principles, cannot be amended or destroyed by the parliament, even under Article 368, which grants the power to amend the constitution.

·         The doctrine of public trust, which holds that certain natural resources, such as air, water, forests, and wildlife, are held by the state in trust for the benefit of the people and future generations, and that the state must protect and preserve them by article 48-A, which directs the state to protect and improve the environment.

·         The principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which holds that while all states have a common responsibility to address global environmental issues, such as climate change, they have different obligations and capacities based on their historical contribution and current level of development, by article 51-A (g), which makes it a duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.

·         The principle of sustainable development, which holds that development should meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and that development should balance economic growth with social justice and environmental protection, by articles 39 (b) and ©, which direct the state to secure an equitable distribution of resources and prevent concentration of wealth.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can say that the judiciary has played a crucial role in giving effect to Article 37 and ensuring that the directive principles are not merely pious declarations or empty promises, but are living realities and guiding lights for the state and the people. The judiciary has done so by interpreting and applying Article 37 in various ways, such as expanding the scope and meaning of fundamental rights, harmonizing fundamental rights and directive principles, invoking inherent powers of writ jurisdiction, and developing new doctrines and principles to protect constitutional values. By doing so, the judiciary has acted as a guardian under Article 37 of the Indian constitution.

 

Frequently asked questions with answers about the role of the judiciary as guardian under article 37 of the Indian constitution:

 

What is Article 37 of the Indian constitution? 

 

Article 37 is a provision in Part IV of the Indian constitution, which contains the directive principles of state policy. Article 37 states that the principles in Part IV are not enforceable by any court, but are fundamental in the governance of the country and the duty of the state to apply them in making laws.

 

What are the directive principles of state policy? 

 

The directive principles of state policy are a set of guidelines or ideals for the state to follow in making laws and policies for the welfare of the people. They include, among others, securing a social order based on justice, promoting the welfare of all sections of society, protecting the environment, ensuring equal pay for equal work, and providing free and compulsory education for children.

 

Why are the directive principles not enforceable by courts?

 

The directive principles are not enforceable by courts because they are not meant to be rights or obligations, but rather aspirations or goals for the state to achieve. They are also subject to the availability of resources and the prevailing circumstances. The framers of the Constitution intended to make them flexible and adaptable to changing needs and situations.

 

How does the judiciary give effect to Article 37 and the directive principles? 

 

The judiciary gives effect to Article 37 and the directive principles by interpreting and applying them in various ways, such as:

 

Expanding the scope and meaning of fundamental rights, especially Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The judiciary has read into Article 21 various aspects and dimensions that are derived from or related to directive principles, such as the right to health, education, livelihood, a clean environment, food, shelter, and privacy.

Harmonizing fundamental rights and directive principles, whenever there is a conflict or tension between them. The judiciary has held that fundamental rights and directive principles are not mutually exclusive or antagonistic, but complementary and supplementary to each other. They are both essential for achieving the goals of social justice and human welfare enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution.

Invoking inherent powers of writ jurisdiction under articles 32 and 226 of the constitution. These articles empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue writs, orders, or directions to any person or authority, including the state, for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. The judiciary has used these powers to issue various kinds of writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to protect the rights and interests of the people and to ensure that the state acts in accordance with the constitution and the law.

Developing new doctrines and principles to protect constitutional values and to prevent the abuse or misuse of power by the state. Some of these doctrines and principles are:

The doctrine of basic structure holds that the basic structure or essence of the constitution, including the directive principles, cannot be amended or destroyed by the parliament, even under Article 368, which grants the power to amend the constitution.

The doctrine of public trust holds that certain natural resources, such as air, water, forests, and wildlife, are held by the state in trust for the benefit of the people and future generations, and that the state must protect and preserve them by article 48-A, which directs the state to protect and improve the environment.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which holds that while all states have a common responsibility to address global environmental issues, such as climate change, they have different obligations and capacities based on their historical contribution and current level of development, by article 51-A (g), which makes it a duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.

The principle of sustainable development, which holds that development should meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and that development should balance economic growth with social justice and environmental protection, by articles 39 (b) and ©, which direct the state to secure an equitable distribution of resources and prevent concentration of wealth.

Why is the judiciary called the guardian of the Constitution? 

The judiciary is called the guardian of the constitution because it has the power to interpret the constitution and review and strike down any law or action of the state that is inconsistent with or violates any provision of the constitution. This power is known as judicial review. The judiciary also ensures that fundamental rights are protected.