From its birth, the Indian Constitution has been facing a tug-of-war between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), trying to balance both. FRs are justiciable and enforceable by the courts; whereas DPSP guidelines represent non-justiciable principles of state policy, mostly aimed at social and economic democracy.

Key Case Laws:

1. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): The Supreme Court said that FRs have more weight than DPSP as the former is justifiable but not later. This case exposed the initial tension between these two sets of provisions.
2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): FRs are supreme, Parliament cannot amend FRs to implement DPSPs.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Basic Structure Doctrine, Parliament can amend the Constitution but not the basic structure which includes FRs. This case balances the protection of FRs and the implementation of DPSPs through amendments.
4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Amendments giving unbridled power to DPSPs over FRs were struck down. The court said harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs is essential, neither should be absolute.
5. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): The Court read DPSPs into FRs, especially Article 21 (Right to Life), and held education is implicit in the Right to Life and personal liberty. This was a major milestone in reconciling FRs and DPSPs.

In short, the judiciary has evolved a balanced approach to reconcile FRs and DPSPs so that both work in harmony with each other rather than against each other and hence a holistic understanding of the Indian Constitution.