JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA VOL. 21, 2022 of ‘non-enforceability’, and that has led us to the strange adventures to finding ways, how to make them enforceable?112 What is the strategic significance of declaring directive principles in Part IV non-enforceable (as distinguished from the enforceable ones at the instance of individual citizens in Part III) and, at the same time, treating them as “fundamental in the governance of the country” and commanding the State that it would be its mandatory constitutional “duty” “to apply these principles in making laws”? The answer is provided concomitantly by the founding fathers of the Constitution themselves. This is by stating unequivocally that, that very State,113 which is obligated to protect the Fundamental Rights of citizens under Part III, is mandatorily required “to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people.”114 And the envisaged complexion of such a “social order” to be secured by the State is comprehensive in character; namely, “a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.”115 In this wise, the State is commanded, “in particular,” to “strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.”116 In view of this comprehensive constitutional character of the affirmative role of the State, read with the solemn resolve to create an inclusive social order (Fraternity) in the very Preamble of the Constitution, the message is ‘loud and clear’: the State is ‘duty bound’ to provide justice to all ipso facto, including particularly the ones who are vulnerable – socially, economically and politically. The State is not required to be prompted to implement the directives, unlike in the case of Fundamental Rights, by making them enforceable (that is, justiciable) in any court of law. The State action itself is expected to be ‘self-justified.’ Finally, in our summation, we may decipher and crystalise the following four reasons in proximity, showing why the Directive Principles of State Policy have been envisioned in our Constitution simply as non-enforceable: 112 See generally, supra, Part III. 113 The definition of the State given under Article 12 of Part III, shall be the same for the purpose of Part IV by virtue of Article 36 of Part IV of the Constitution. 114 Article 38 of the Constitution. 115 Article 38(1) of the Constitution. 116 Article 38(2) of the Constitution. Inserted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 9 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979). 28