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

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
Statement A describes the status of the Directive Principles. Statement R describes how they interact with the Fundamental Rights. Check each for truth, then check the link.

Step 2: Testing statement A:
Article 37 says the provisions of Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles 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.
A is that article almost word for word, so A is true.

Step 3: Testing statement R:
The first half of R says the two Parts are complementary. Courts have said this repeatedly. Minerva Mills described the balance between Parts III and IV as part of the basic structure, and later cases read the two together to give content to rights such as Article 21.
The second half says fundamental rights prevail where there is a conflict. Champakam Dorairajan laid this down, holding that the Directive Principles must run subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights. That position remains the general rule.
So R is true as a broad statement.

Step 4: Does R explain A?
A answers one question: are the Directive Principles enforceable in court? The answer is no, and the reason for that lies in Article 37 itself, in the choice made by the framers to leave social and economic goals to the political process rather than to judges.
R answers a different question: what happens when a Directive Principle collides with a Fundamental Right?
Those are separate issues. The Directive Principles would still be unenforceable even if there were never a single clash with Part III. So R states a true related fact without supplying the reason for A.

Step 5: Why the other options fail:
Option (A) treats the priority rule as the cause of unenforceability, which it is not.
Option (C) calls R false. R matches the settled position from Champakam Dorairajan onwards.
Option (D) calls A false, but A is Article 37 restated.

Step 6: Final Answer:
Both statements are correct, but the priority rule in R does not explain why Part IV is unenforceable.
\[ \boxed{\text{Option (B)}} \]