**Answer:**

The correct answer is option 'A' - State of Madras vs. Champakam (1951).

**Explanation:**

**Background:**
The State of Madras vs. Champakam case, also known as the First Amendment case, was a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that highlighted the unenforceable nature of directive principles.

**Directive Principles of State Policy:**
Directive Principles of State Policy are a set of guidelines or principles given in Part IV of the Indian Constitution. These principles are not enforceable by any court but are meant to guide the state in making laws and policies.

**Violation of Equality:**
In the State of Madras vs. Champakam case, the Madras government reserved seats in educational institutions for different communities based on their population. This reservation policy violated the principle of equality enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.

**Supreme Court's Ruling:**
The Supreme Court held that the reservation policy violated the principle of equality and struck it down. In its judgment, the court highlighted the unenforceability of directive principles and stated that fundamental rights override directive principles.

**Conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:**
The court observed that if there is a conflict between a fundamental right and a directive principle, the fundamental right will prevail. The court emphasized that the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution are enforceable, while the directive principles in Part IV are not enforceable.

**Balancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:**
However, the court also recognized the importance of directive principles and stated that they should be used as a guide for the state in making laws and policies. The court emphasized the harmonious interpretation of fundamental rights and directive principles and urged the state to strike a balance between the two.

**Impact of the Judgment:**
The State of Madras vs. Champakam case highlighted the unenforceable nature of directive principles and the primacy of fundamental rights. It clarified the relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles and established that the fundamental rights have a higher legal status than directive principles.

**Conclusion:**
In the State of Madras vs. Champakam case, the Supreme Court emphasized the unenforceable nature of directive principles and held that fundamental rights override directive principles in case of a conflict. This landmark case clarified the status and importance of directive principles in Indian constitutional law.