CASE COMMENTARY : Minerva Mills vs. Union of India 1980 3 SCC 625
- shwetasabuji
- Feb 25
- 5 min read
AUTHOR : NAMRATA JANA
Case Title – Minerva Mills vs. Union of India
Citation – 1980 3SCC625
Court – Supreme Court of India
Date of judgement – 17 April 1913
Bench – Chief Justice Y.V.Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, and P.S. Kailasam JJ.
Petitioner – Minerva Mills Ltd. ( A company nationalized under the silk textile Undertaking Act), and its shareholders
Respondent – Union of India (UOI) and others ( including the National Textile Corporation Ltd.)
Facts of the case -
Minerva Mills Ltd., a textile mill located in Karnataka, had been taken over by the Central Government under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, on the ground that the mill was mismanaged and had become sick.
Around the same time, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 was enacted during the Emergency period. This amendment made sweeping changes to the Constitution.
Two major constitutional changes were challenged in this case:
Article 31C was expanded to give absolute primacy to Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) over Fundamental Rights, especially Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (freedoms).
Articles 368(4) and 368(5) were inserted, which:
Took away the power of judicial review over constitutional amendments.
Declared that there shall be no limitation on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Minerva Mills challenged these provisions, arguing that:
Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
Judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution.
Giving unlimited power to Parliament violates constitutional supremacy.
The case was filed directly before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32, questioning the constitutional validity of the above amendments.
Why These Facts Matter
The case tested the limits of Parliament’s amending power.
It followed and strengthened the principles laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
It involved the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
The issue before the Supreme Court
The Minerva Mills vs. Union of India Case focused on whether constitutional amendments could override foundation constitutional principles.
Major issues highlighted in this case were :
· Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the constitution under Article 368.
· Whether the 42nd Amendment violated the basic structure Doctrine.
· Whether judicial review of constitutional amendments could be excluded.
· Whether amended Article 31C disturbed the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive principles.
· Whether Nationalisation laws were protected from challenge under Article 31B.
Law Applicable :
· Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 – Section 4 – Amended Article 31 C of the Constitution by substituting the words and figures “all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV” for the words and figures “the principles specified in Clause (b) or Clause(c) of Article 39”
· Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 – Section 55- Inserted Clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368 which read thus :
(4) No Amendment of this Constitution ( including the provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have been made under this article ( whether before or after the commencement of Section 55 of the Constitution ( Forty – second Amendment) Act, 1976) shall be called in question in any court on any ground
(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the Provisions of this Constitution under this article
· Constitution of India – Article 31C – Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 and Article 31 ; and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it doesn’t give effect to such policy :
Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State the provisions of this Article shall not apply thereto unless such law , having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent.
· Constitution of India – Article 368 - Power of Parliament to amend the constitution and Procedure thereto.
Arguments of the Petitioner – The Contention of the petitioner was that the there were implied limitations on the power of amendment and therefore Article 368 did not confer power on Parliament to amend the Constitution so as to destroy or emasculate the essential or basic elements of features of the Constitution. The basic structure of the Constitution rests on the foundation that while the directive principles are the mandatory ends of government, those ends can be achieved only through permission means which are set out in Part III of the Constitution. If Article 31 C as amended by the 42nd Amendment is allowed to stand, it will confer an unrestricted license on the legislature and the executive, both at the centre and in the states, to destroy democracy and establish an authoritarian regime.
Arguments of the Respondents - Securing the implementation of directive principles by the elimination of obstructive legal procedures cannot ever be said to destroy or damage the basic features of the Constitution . Further,laws made for securing the objectives of Part IV would necessarily be in public interest. A law which fulfils the directive of Article 38 is incapable of abrogating fundamental freedoms or of damaging the basic structure of the Constitution in as much as that structure itself is founded on the principle of justice – social , Economic and political
Majority Opinion (Per C.J.Chandrachud, A.C.Gupta, N.L.Untwalia, P.S.Kailasam,JJ.)
Section 4 & 55 Invalid – Section 4 & 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act , 1976, were declared unconstitutional.
Basic Structure Doctrine – The Court held that a limited power is itself a basic feature of the Constitution, which cannot be destroyed to create an unlimited power.
Balance of Power – Section 4, which gave absolute precedence to all Directive Principles ( Part IV) over Fundamental Rights ( Article 14, 19 and 21 - Part III), was invalid because it destroyed the harmony between the two.
Judicial Review – Clause 5 of Article 368 which barred court review of constitutional amendments, was struck down.
Minority Opinion – Justice P. N . Bhagwati ( Dissenting)
I) Section 55 of the Constitution (Forty – second Amendment) Act , 1976 which inserted Sub- section (4) and (5) in Article 368 as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it damages the basic structure of the Constitution and goes beyond the amending power of Parliament.
II) So far as Section 4 of the Constitution ( Forty – second Amendment) Act , 1976 is connected, it doesn’t damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution and is within the amending power of Parliament and I would therefore Declare the amended Article 31C to be Constitutional and valid.
Conclusion –
The Minerva Mills case is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that applied and evolved the basic structure Doctrine of the Constitution of India. The judgement established a robust framework for constutional interpretation by reinforcing that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not unlimited and must respect the Constitution’s basic structure. By striking down key provisions of the 42nd Amendment, the Court protected the independence of judiciary, preserved the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive principles, and ensured that India remains a constitutional Jurisprudence preventing any attempt to concentrate unlimited power in any single institution and maintaining the Constitution’s character as the Supreme law that binds even the Parliament.
Refrences –
Comments