Here are some of the historical events that led to the inclusion of the DPSP in the Indian Constitution:

• The Irish Constitution of 1937: The Irish Constitution was the first to include a set of Directive Principles of State Policy. The framers of the Indian Constitution were impressed by the Irish model, and they decided to include a similar set of principles in the Indian Constitution.
• The Nehru Report of 1928: The Nehru Report was a landmark document in the history of Indian constitutional development. It was the first time that a comprehensive plan for a self-governing India had been put forward. The Nehru Report included a set of Directive Principles, which were later incorporated into the Indian Constitution.
• The Constituent Assembly of India: The Constituent Assembly of India was formed in 1946 to draft the constitution. The Constituent Assembly included members from all walks of life, and it was tasked with drafting a constitution that would meet the needs of all Indians. The DPSP were debated and discussed at length in the Constituent Assembly, and they were ultimately included in the final draft of the constitution.

1. Article 36: Definition and Application of DPSP: This article defines the term "State" and states that the provisions contained in Part IV of the Constitution are not enforceable by any court but are fundamental in governance.

2. Article 37: Application of DPSP to State Policy: It clarifies that the principles contained in Part IV shall be considered while making laws, and they are fundamental in the governance of the country.

3. Article 38: State to Secure a Social Order for the Promotion of Welfare: This article emphasizes the state's duty to strive for the promotion of the welfare of the people by securing social order, justice, and individual dignity.

4. Article 39: Certain Principles of Policy to Be Followed by the State: This article outlines various principles, including the equitable distribution of resources, prevention of concentration of wealth, protection of workers' rights, and the right to an adequate livelihood.

5. Article 41: Right to Work, to Education, and to Public Assistance in Certain Cases: It highlights the state's responsibility to secure opportunities for work, education, and public assistance for individuals who are unable to secure a livelihood.

6. Article 45: Provision for Free and Compulsory Education for Children: This article directs the state to provide free and compulsory education for children up to the age of fourteen.

7. Article 46: Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Weaker Sections: It mandates the state to promote the educational and economic interests of marginalized and weaker sections of society, including Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

8. Article 47: Duty of the State to Raise the Level of Nutrition and the Standard of Living: This article emphasizes the state's obligation to improve public health, raise the nutritional standards, and promote the overall well-being of the people.

9. Article 48: Organization of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry: It directs the state to take steps to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines to increase productivity and prevent cruelty to animals.

10. Article 50: Separation of Judiciary from the Executive: This article highlights the need for the state to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive to ensure the independence of the judiciary.

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) were debated and discussed at length in the Constituent Assembly of India. There were a variety of views on the DPSP, but the following were some of the key arguments that were made:

• The DPSP are essential for the creation of a just and equitable society. Some members of the Constituent Assembly argued that the DPSP were essential for the creation of a just and equitable society. They argued that the DPSP would help to ensure that all Indians had access to basic necessities such as food, shelter, and education. They also argued that the DPSP would help to promote social justice and equality.
• The DPSP are not enforceable by the courts, but they are nevertheless important. Other members of the Constituent Assembly argued that the DPSP were not enforceable by the courts, but that they were nevertheless important. They argued that the DPSP would serve as a guide for the government and would help to ensure that the government took steps to promote the welfare of the people.
• The DPSP should be enforceable by the courts. Some members of the Constituent Assembly argued that the DPSP should be enforceable by the courts. They argued that this would give the people a way to hold the government accountable for its actions.

In the end, the Constituent Assembly decided to include the DPSP in the Indian Constitution, but they made them non-justiciable. This means that the courts cannot enforce the DPSP, but the government is still expected to take steps to implement them.

 7. Landmark Judgements

Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, Golaknath Case, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India are all landmark cases in the history of Indian constitutional law. They have all had a significant impact on the interpretation of the Constitution of India, and they continue to be cited in cases today.

1. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark case is one of the most significant judgments in Indian constitutional history. It dealt with the question of the scope and extent of the amending power of the Parliament under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure, which includes the essential features and the foundational principles of the Constitution. This judgment established the concept of "Basic Structure Doctrine," ensuring that certain fundamental principles and values of the Constitution remain inviolable and beyond the reach of ordinary amendments.

2. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): In this case, the Supreme Court revisited the concept of the Basic Structure Doctrine and further clarified its scope. The court held that the Parliament's amending power is not unlimited, and it cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Additionally, the judgment struck down certain provisions of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, which had given the Parliament unrestricted amending power and curtailed the powers of the judiciary.

3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): In this case, the Supreme Court considered the issue of the Parliament's amending power under Article 368. The court held that the amending power does not extend to change or take away the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. This judgment asserted the view that fundamental rights are outside the scope of amendment and led to the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971, which clarified that the Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This landmark case expanded the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to life is not merely the right to physical existence but includes the right to live with dignity. The case involved the cancellation of Maneka Gandhi's passport without providing her an opportunity to be heard, and the court ruled that the principles of natural justice must be followed in all cases affecting a person's rights. This judgment strengthened the protection of individual rights and ensured that the right to personal liberty is not violated without proper procedure and fairness.