(1.) TO some people State is essentially a class-structure, an organization of one class dominating over the other classes; others regard it as an organization that transcends all classes and stands for the whole community. They regard it as a power-system. Some view it entirely as a legal structure, either in the old Austrinian sence which made it a relationship of governors and governed, or, in the language of modern jurisprudence, as a community, ' organized for action under legal rules'. Some regard it as no more than a mutual insurance society, others as the very texture of all our life. Some class the state as a great ' corporation' and others consider it as indistinguishable from society itself. (Mac Iver, "the Modern State" )
(2.) DURING recent times, the concept of State has undergone drastic changes. Today, State cannot be conceived of simply as a coercive machinery wielding the power of authority for simply collecting tax or for enforcing law and order. It now carries out multifarious activities affecting the lives of the individuals. State also renders varied kind of services to the people. According to Mac Iver- "if we clearly grasp the character of the State as a social agent, understanding it rationally as a form of service and not mystically as an ultimate power, we shall differ only in respect of the limits of its ability to render service. "
(3.) THE interplay of part III and part IV has been considered by the Courts in various decisions. In one of the earliest decisions-in The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, A. I. R. 1951 SC 226 - fundamental rights were held pre- eminent vis-a-vis Directive Principles but since then there has been a perceptible shift in the Court's approach to the inter-play of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. In the Kerala Education Bill, A. I. R. 1958 SC 956 a Special Bench of the Supreme Court speaking through S. R. Das, C. J. , while affirming the primacy of Fundamental Rights, qualified in with the following words :