3 Role of Judiciary in Enforcing Directive Principles

The honest doctrinal map (the exam's analytical core): 1. No direct enforcement (Article 55) — no petition lies "to enforce Article 51(g)"; the Court will not order a policy's adoption; 2. The interpretive role — the Nepali Court's real practice: - Harmonious construction: statutes read to advance, not defeat, the directives (the presumption of constitutionality's substantive face); - Rights-directive fusion: the Court's expansion of fundamental rights by the directives' light — the dignity right (Article 16) and the public-interest jurisdiction (Article 133(2)) as the vehicles through which directive content (environment, health, education, food) enters justiciable form — the era's landmark method: the environmental-PIL line (the Godavari- Marble case's generation — environmental protection enforced via Articles 16/30 and the directives together; cite the tradition by name, not invented detail); - Reasonableness review's directive dimension: a rights restriction "reasonable" under the provisos only when it genuinely serves a directive object (the proportionality test's aims-leg); - The limits: the Court will not write policy; budgetary allocation and legislative priority remain political questions' core (the separation-of-powers discipline — Constitutional Law-I, Semester 3, Unit 4); 3. The comparative frame: India's Kesavananda-to-Minerva Mills arc (directives and rights as "conscience and scheme" of the constitution; the basic-structure doctrine's directive core) and Ireland's 1966–2000s shift (from absolute bar to interpretive use) — by name only, as the comparative…