Concept:The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is based on a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and this was stated in the Minerva Mills Case.
Explanation:The conflict between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) has been examined in several cases.
In the Champakam Durairajan Case (1952), the Court said FRs are superior to DPSPs.
In the Golak Nath Case (1967), it held that FRs cannot be diluted.
In the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), the basic structure doctrine was established, and Article 31C’s second clause was struck down.
In the Minerva Mills Case (1980), the Court reviewed Article 31C which had extended protection to laws implementing all DPSPs.
The Court ruled that only laws implementing Article 39(b) and 39(c) are protected; extending to all DPSPs violates the basic structure.
In this judgment, the Supreme Court explicitly said the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance between FRs and DPSPs.
Therefore, the correct case is the Minerva Mills Case.
Answer:C. Minerva Mills Case