Explanation:

In view of the non-enforceability, the directive principles have been described by some critics as “pious expressions” or “resolution made by the new years day”. To other they appear as an “instrument of instructions”. These expressions however, betray the ignorance of the critics about the legal utility of the Directives. Though they are non-enforceable, the directives are the fundamental principles of governance and all the branches of government. The executive, the legislature and the judiciary, have to take cognizance of them. In fact, the judiciary has followed the principle of the harmonious construction between the fundamental rights and the Directive principles of State policy. Judiciary has also taken the help of the Directives while interpreting the various provisions of the constitution. While dealing with relationship between the fundamental rights and the directive principles, Chandrachud, chief Justice of India then, stated in Minerva Mill’s case, “the Indian constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV to give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and Directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution.