Question

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as 'Assertion' (A) and the other as 'Reason' (R). Examine these two statements carefully and select the correct answer.

Assertion (A): Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.

Reason (R): Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights are both complementary to each other but in case of any controversy fundamental rights will prevail.

• A. Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A.
• B. Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A.
• C. A is true but R is false.
• D. A is false but R is true.

Hint:

Both statements are accepted law. Ask whether the rule about which Part wins a clash tells you anything about why Part IV cannot be enforced in court at all.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Both statements here are standard textbook propositions, so the real work is in the third question that assertion and reason format always asks: does the second statement actually answer the question raised by the first? Statement A raises the question of enforceability. Statement R answers a question about priority in a clash. Different questions, so the link fails.

1. Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A: The truth part holds but the explanation part does not. Saying that Fundamental Rights win a conflict does not tell you why a court cannot enforce a Directive Principle in the first place. Part IV would still be unenforceable in a case where no Fundamental Right is involved at all, so R cannot be the cause.
2. Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A: Correct. A is Article 37 reproduced. The bar on enforceability comes from the framers' decision to leave social and economic goals to the legislature and the executive, whose choices depend on money and policy rather than on judicial orders. R sets out the settled position from Champakam Dorairajan onwards, along with the complementary reading later stressed in Minerva Mills. Both stand, but they answer different questions.
3. A is true but R is false: R is not false. The complementary relationship and the primacy of Part III in a direct conflict are both accepted propositions.
4. A is false but R is true: A is not false. It is a near verbatim rendering of Article 37.

One qualification is worth knowing. Article 31C carves out a narrow area where a law made to give effect to certain Directive Principles cannot be struck down for offending Articles 14 or 19. That exception does not upset the general rule R states.

Let's summarize:

• A is Article 37 and is about enforceability.
• R is about which Part wins a clash, which is a different issue.
• Both are true, but R does not explain A.

The answer is option (B).