Minerva Mills Ltd. & Others v. Union of India & Others
Bench: Constitution Bench — 5 Judges (Y.V. Chandrachud CJ, A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati & P.S. Kailasam JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 — enacted during the Emergency — contained two highly controversial provisions: (1) Section 4 amended Article 31C to protect all laws implementing Directive Principles from fundamental rights challenge (previously only laws implementing Articles 39(b) and 39(c) were protected); and (2) Section 55 amended Article 368 to give Parliament unlimited amending power — declaring that no amendment could be challenged in any court on any ground. Minerva Mills challenged the nationalisation of their textile company under the Sick Textile Undertakings Act, which was protected from challenge by the amended Article 31C.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Is Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment — expanding Article 31C to protect all laws implementing Directive Principles from fundamental rights challenge — constitutionally valid?
- 2Is Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment — giving Parliament unlimited amending power and making amendments unchallengeable in courts — constitutionally valid?
- 3Does the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles form part of the basic structure of the Constitution?
The Judgment
The Constitution Bench struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment as violating the basic structure of the Constitution. (1) Section 55 — giving Parliament unlimited amending power — was struck down as it destroyed the limited amending power that is itself part of the basic structure (per Kesavananda Bharati). An amendment that removes judicial review of amendments destroys judicial review as a basic structure element. (2) Section 4 — extending Article 31C to all Directive Principles — was struck down as it gave Directive Principles absolute supremacy over all fundamental rights, destroying the balance between rights and principles that is a basic structure element.
Key Principles Laid Down
BALANCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES IS BASIC STRUCTURE: The harmony and balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) is a basic feature of the Constitution. Parliament cannot give Directive Principles absolute supremacy over all fundamental rights — this would destroy the constitutional balance.
SECTION 55 OF 42ND AMENDMENT STRUCK DOWN — UNLIMITED AMENDING POWER IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Parliament cannot amend Article 368 to give itself unlimited amending power. The limited nature of the amending power — subject to the basic structure doctrine — is itself part of the basic structure. Parliament cannot use Article 368 to destroy the limits on Article 368.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IS BASIC STRUCTURE: Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to remove judicial review of constitutional amendments. Courts' power to examine whether amendments violate the basic structure is itself a basic structure element.
SECTION 4 OF 42ND AMENDMENT (EXPANDED ARTICLE 31C) STRUCK DOWN: The expanded Article 31C — protecting all laws implementing any Directive Principle from fundamental rights challenge — was too broad. It would have allowed Parliament to immunise any law from fundamental rights scrutiny by claiming it implements some Directive Principle. The original, narrower Article 31C (protecting only Articles 39(b) and 39(c) laws) was restored.
KESAVANANDA BHARATI GIVEN TEETH: Minerva Mills is the case where Kesavananda Bharati's Basic Structure doctrine was used to strike down sweeping Emergency-era amendments. It confirmed that the doctrine has real, substantive content — it is not merely declaratory.
Impact on Indian Law
Minerva Mills (1980) is a critical post-Emergency application of Kesavananda Bharati. It established two foundational principles: (1) the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is a basic structure element; and (2) Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to give itself unlimited amending power or remove judicial review of amendments. Together with Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills completes the foundational trilogy of basic structure jurisprudence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Minerva Mills decide about the 42nd Amendment?
Minerva Mills (1980) struck down two provisions of the Emergency-era 42nd Constitutional Amendment: (1) Section 55 — which gave Parliament unlimited amending power and made amendments unchallengeable in courts — was struck down as it destroyed judicial review, a basic structure element; (2) Section 4 — which expanded Article 31C to protect all laws implementing any Directive Principle from fundamental rights challenge — was struck down as it destroyed the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles, also a basic structure element.
Why is the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles considered a basic structure element?
Per Minerva Mills (1980), the Constitution achieves a careful harmony between Part III (individual fundamental rights) and Part IV (collective directive principles for social welfare). This balance — where neither completely overrides the other — is a basic feature of the constitutional scheme. Allowing Parliament to give directive principles absolute supremacy over all fundamental rights would fundamentally alter the Constitution's character.