Consider the following statements: With reference to the Constitution of India, the Directive Principles of State Policy constitute limitations upon 1. legislative function. 2. executive function. Which of the above statements is/are correct?

The answer is D: neither statement is correct. Article 37 says the DPSP are not enforceable by any court, and they are 'fundamental in the governance of the country', meaning they guide the State. Article 13 makes laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void, but no comparable clause voids a law for violating a DPSP. So the DPSP cannot limit legislative or executive power in the way Fundamental Rights do.

Read the wording carefully. The DPSP (Articles 36 to 51) are positive directions telling the State what to aim for, such as equal justice and a living wage, and separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 50. They guide law-making and policy, which is different from restricting them. Courts have used the DPSP to interpret and uphold laws, as in Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills, where the balance between Parts III and IV was treated as part of the basic structure. That is interpretation, not a bar on the State.

Mains angle: the tension between welfare directives and enforceable rights is central to debates on the right to food, the right to education and the limits of judicial activism.

Trap: aspirants read 'guide' as 'restrict' and pick statement 1 or 2. Non-justiciable under Article 37 means the DPSP impose no legal limitation.