Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India

Facts

Minerva Mills Ltd. owned a textile undertaking in Karnataka. After an investigation under Section 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Central Government in October 1971 authorised the National Textile Corporation to take over its management under Section 18A, and the undertaking was later nationalised under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, which the 39th Amendment placed in the Ninth Schedule. The company and its shareholders petitioned under Article 32 challenging the Nationalisation Act, the 1971 order, the 39th Amendment and Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment. Section 4 extended Article 31C to protect laws giving effect to any Directive Principle from challenge under Articles 14 and 19; Section 55 added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368, barring judicial review of amendments and declaring the amending power unlimited. The Court dealt only with Sections 4 and 55.

Questions before the Court

1. Are clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, inserted by Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, beyond the amending power because they destroy the basic structure?
2. Is the amendment of Article 31C by Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, giving all Directive Principles primacy over Articles 14 and 19, valid?
3. Is the balance between Fundamental Rights in Part III and Directive Principles in Part IV a basic feature of the Constitution?

What the Court held

• Clause (5) of Article 368 is unconstitutional. A limited amending power is itself a basic feature; Parliament cannot use that limited power to make it unlimited, and the power to destroy is not a power to amend.
• Clause (4) of Article 368, which barred courts from questioning any amendment, is void as well. It is linked to clause (5), removes judicial review and the redress guaranteed by Article 32, and would make a controlled Constitution uncontrolled. Section 55 was therefore struck down.
• The Constitution rests on a balance between Parts III and IV. Giving absolute primacy to one over the other disturbs that harmony, which is an essential feature of the basic structure.
• Section 4 is void. By excluding challenge under Articles 14 and 19 to any law for securing any Directive Principle, it abrogates those rights for an uncatalogued variety of laws, and it cannot be read down against its plain purpose. Article 31C as it stood before the 42nd Amendment remains valid to the extent upheld in Kesavananda Bharati.

Why it matters

Applying the basic structure doctrine of Kesavananda Bharati, the judgment holds that Parliament cannot remove the limits on its own amending power or exclude judicial review of amendments, and identifies the limited amending power, judicial review and the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as basic features. It invalidated the 42nd Amendment's extension of Article 31C and clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

Provisions interpreted

• Article 368(4) and (5), Constitution
• Article 31C, Constitution
• Article 14, Constitution
• Article 19, Constitution
• Article 32, Constitution
• Sections 4 and 55, Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976

Related judgments

• Follows Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)“The question which we have to determine on the basis of the majority view in Keshavaananda Bharati (Supra) is whether the amendments introduced by sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 damage the basic structure of the Constitution” (page 34)
• Followed in Waman Rao v. Union of India (1980)
• Followed in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1986)

Case and bench

Parties

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India

Case

Writ Petition Nos. 356-361 of 1977 (Original Jurisdiction)

Decided

31 July 1980

Bench

Chandrachud, Y.V. (CJ), Bhagwati, P.N., Gupta, A.C., Untwalia, N.L., Kailasam, P.S.

Opinions

Majority 4:1. Chandrachud, CJ wrote the majority judgment, giving reasons for the order of 9 May 1980 made by him and the three other judges (Gupta, Untwalia and Kailasam, JJ.). Bhagwati, J. agreed that Section 55 was void but dissented on Section 4, holding the amended Article 31C valid.

Questions on this case

18 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

1. Question 1 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

   In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down which clauses of Article 368 that had been inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976?

   1. A. Clauses (3) and (4)
   2. B. Clauses (2) and (3)
   3. C. Clauses (1) and (5)
   4. D. Clauses (4) and (5)
   Show the answer

   D. Clauses (4) and (5)

   Section 55 of the Forty-second Amendment inserted clause (4) (no amendment to be called in question in any court) and clause (5) (no limitation whatever on the constituent power) in Article 368. Minerva Mills held both invalid because a limited amending power and judicial review are basic features. Clause (3) had been inserted earlier by the Twenty-fourth Amendment and was not struck down.

2. Question 2 · Constitutional Law Practice Set 3 — Rights, Cases & Structure

   In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court held that the basic structure includes:

   1. A. Absolute primacy of Directive Principles
   2. B. Absolute primacy of Fundamental Rights
   3. C. Unlimited parliamentary sovereignty
   4. D. A balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
   Show the answer

   D. A balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

   In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment and held that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure.

3. Question 3 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

   In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), what did the majority hold about the power of Parliament under Article 368?

   1. A. It is unlimited, and no amendment made under it can be called in question in any court on any ground
   2. B. It does not extend to Part III at all, so no fundamental right can ever be abridged by an amendment
   3. C. It can amend Part III only after ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States
   4. D. It reaches every provision, but does not include a power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution
   Show the answer

   D. It reaches every provision, but does not include a power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution

   The majority held that the amending power under Article 368 is wide but does not include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution, and overruled I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had denied Parliament any power to abridge fundamental rights. An unlimited, non-justiciable amending power was what clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 later tried to create, and those clauses were struck down in Minerva Mills (1980).