Discuss the utility of the DPSP in the Indian constitution and also explain how conflict between DPSP and Fundamental right led to the evolution of Principle of harmonious balance between two [150 words, 10 marks]

Introduction: The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are principles enshrined in Part IV (Articles 36-51) of the Indian Constitution. These principles aim to create a social and economic framework that can lead to an equitable society. 

• Although not justiciable, DPSPs play a crucial role in governance and policy-making in India.

Utility of DPSP

1. Guidance for Governance: DPSPs act as a guide for the state in framing laws and policies. They ensure that legislative and executive actions are directed towards creating a welfare state.
2. Economic and Social Democracy: DPSPs strive to establish economic and social democracy, aiming to reduce inequalities in wealth and opportunities and to promote social justice.
3. Moral Obligation: Though not enforceable by law, DPSPs impose a moral obligation on the state to apply these principles in governance, thereby influencing the creation of a just society.
4. Policy Framework: DPSPs provide a framework for policy-making in various areas such as education, health, labour, and social welfare, guiding the state towards achieving the goals of a welfare state.
5. Supplement to Fundamental Rights: While Fundamental Rights ensure political democracy, DPSPs aim to ensure social and economic democracy, thereby complementing each other to realise the constitutional vision of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Conflict between DPSP and Fundamental Rights

Early Conflicts: The initial years after independence saw several conflicts between DPSPs and Fundamental Rights. Fundamental Rights are enforceable by the courts, while DPSPs are not. This led to legal tussles when laws enacted to implement DPSPs were challenged for violating Fundamental Rights.

Supreme court Case Studies:

1. Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951): The Supreme Court ruled that in case of conflict, Fundamental Rights would prevail over DPSPs. This decision emphasised the supremacy of Fundamental Rights.
2. Golaknath Case (1967): The Supreme Court reiterated that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights to give effect to DPSPs, maintaining the superiority of Fundamental Rights.
3. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): This landmark judgement introduced the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution. The court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, but such amendments should not alter the basic structure. This provided a balanced approach by allowing changes in Fundamental Rights to implement DPSPs without compromising the Constitution’s core values.
4. Minerva Mills Case (1980): The Supreme Court struck down amendments that gave unbridled power to Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, asserting that a balance must be maintained between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. The court stated that achieving the goals set out in DPSPs was essential, but it should not lead to the abrogation of Fundamental Rights.

Principle of Harmonious Balance The judiciary, over the years, has evolved the principle of harmonious construction to resolve conflicts between DPSPs and Fundamental Rights. This principle ensures that both sets of provisions are given equal importance, and a balance is struck without undermining either.

Conclusion The DPSPs are integral to the Indian Constitution, guiding the state in policy-making and aiming to create an equitable society. The principle of harmonious construction ensures that both Fundamental Rights and DPSPs coexist, contributing to the overall growth and development of the nation