Can an individual citizen approach an Indian court directly for the judicial enforcement of a Directive Principle of State Policy?

Introduction / Context:
The Constitution of India distinguishes between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. Fundamental Rights are justiciable, which means that citizens can approach courts directly if these rights are violated. Directive Principles, on the other hand, set goals for the state to achieve social and economic justice but do not create enforceable individual claims. This question tests whether a learner understands that difference and knows the limits of judicial enforcement for Directive Principles.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The question is about a citizen approaching a court for enforcement of a Directive Principle.
• Possible answers include full enforceability, no enforceability, conditional enforceability, and special powers for government or Supreme Court.
• We assume the standard interpretation under Articles 37 and the scheme of Parts III and IV.

Concept / Approach:
Article 37 of the Constitution states that the provisions contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable by any court, but they are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country. This means that while courts may use Directive Principles to interpret laws or guide policy, an individual cannot demand their direct implementation through a writ petition in the same way as Fundamental Rights. Therefore, the clear answer is that a citizen cannot directly approach a court to compel the state to implement a Directive Principle.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall that Fundamental Rights are contained in Part III and are enforceable in courts under Articles 32 and 226.Step 2: Remember that Directive Principles are contained in Part IV and are explicitly declared non justiciable in Article 37.Step 3: Understand that courts may refer to Directive Principles while interpreting laws, but individuals cannot force their implementation through legal action.Step 4: Review the options and note that none of the conditional or special power options reflect the language of Article 37.Step 5: Conclude that the correct answer is that a citizen cannot approach a court for enforcement of a Directive Principle.

Verification / Alternative check:
A second way to check is to recall famous cases such as the Minerva Mills decision, where the Supreme Court discussed how Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles must be balanced. Even in such cases, the court did not treat Directive Principles as enforceable claims for individuals but rather as guiding values for interpreting laws and constitutional provisions. This supports the idea that while Directive Principles are important, they do not give rise to direct legal remedies in the same manner as Fundamental Rights.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
If the answer were Yes, it would contradict the plain text of Article 37, which clearly denies enforceability. The idea that citizens could enforce them upon fulfilling some conditions is not found anywhere in the Constitution. The suggestion that only the government or only the Supreme Court can move for enforcement also misunderstands the nature of these principles. Although courts can use Directive Principles in judgments, they do not enforce them as direct claims. Hence all options other than No misrepresent the constitutional position.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes assume that because Directive Principles include important social goals like free education, just wages, and public health, they must be enforceable like rights. Others misinterpret later judicial activism as converting some Directive Principles into rights, when actually the courts have expanded Fundamental Rights using Directive Principles as background. To avoid confusion, it is important to remember the formal rule: Directive Principles are non justiciable, and no direct legal remedy exists for their enforcement.

Final Answer:
No