They are more interested in making fortunes in the practice of medicine than in the prevention of disease. They are more interested in profits in the business world than they are in a wellplanned system of business organisation adapted to the needs of our social order. They are more interested in individualism than they are in collective planning for the good of all. The effects of the moral standards of our people are already manifest. As a result of our political and economic theories, there has developed a concentration of wealth unparalleled in human history. While on the whole the economic level is comparatively high in the United States, the difference between the wealth of the many and that of the few is starting. One-fourth of the families in the United States before the depression had incomes of less than $500 and two-thirds of the families in the United States incomes of less than $1,000, while 2 per cent of our population owned 65 per cent of the wealth. There were four men any one of whom had an income as large as five million of the poorest people in the United States. This concentration of wealth was probably one of the primary causes of the depression, and the depression has threatened our capitalistic system. This only shows the danger inherent in our political organisation." 570. If the people of an advanced country like the U. S. A., left entirely to the concept of popular sovereignty, have revealed the need for a more positive guiding or moulding role of their State so as to overcome the dangers adverted to by Prof. Willis, how much greater are the needs of a people potentially so great but actually so backward economically and educationally as ours, taken en masse, still are? Our concepts of sovereignty must accord with the needs of the people of our country. Our Constitution, which has been described by G. Austin as "the cornerstone of the Nation", was devised as a means to serve those needs. It has not only the elevating preamble, deserving the allegiance of every rational human being, but, unlike the American Constitution, the whole of Part IV of our Constitution which contains "Directive Principles of state Policy" to guide the future course of State action particularly in the legislative field. It is true that provisions of Part IV are not enforceable through the courts against the State, but they are declared as fundamental in the governance of the country and are used to interpret the constitution and to fix its meaning. I think, from this point of view also, we can say that the concept of the Supremacy of the Constitution is, undoubtedly, more suited to the needs of our country than any other so far put forward. It not only places before us the goals towards which the nation must march but it is meant to compel our Sovereign Rupublic, with its three organs of Government to proceed in certain directions. It assumes that each organ of State will discharge its trust faithfully. Can we deny it that supremacy which is the symbol and proof of the level or our civilisation? 571. I find that the doctrine of the supremacy or sovereignty of the Constitution was adopted by a Bench of seven learned Judges of this Court in Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, (1965) 1 SCR 413 = (AIR 1965 SC 745) where