JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA VOL. 21, 2022 policies. This objective is elaborately reinforced by the clear statement that the enunciated principles are not enforceable in any court and yet fundamental in the governance of the country (Article 37). In contradistinction with the very title of Part III, their singular purpose is not enumeration of Fundamental Rights and their protection through courts (Articles 13 and 32). It needs emphasis to state that the avowed objective of delineating the directives as nonenforceable is not to weaken their value in relation to Fundamental Rights. It is just the opposite. And this is manifest in the conscious usage of the word “duty” under Article 37, which needs to be construed, not as a correlative of ‘right’ as is done in western jurisprudential thought but, in the sense of ‘Dharma’ in which it is invoked in the Indian classical tradition. Such a construction subsumes the notion of right by defining that the States primordial right is to perform its pious ‘duty’, resulting into, say, the fulfilment of Gandhi’s talisman, ‘to wipe every tear from every eye.’ This indeed is the core functional value of the directives, laying down the firm foundation of human rights jurisprudence. This is how the quest for the Truth is quenched and concluded through the mode and medium of ‘Access to Justice’, to be expounded in unison with respect to both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy for redeeming the constitutional vision of inclusive society, and thereby, firmly securing human rights. 30