by The case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, reinforcing the “Basic Structure Doctrine” established in the Keshavananda Bharati case (1973). This case primarily dealt with the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. The judgment is significant for preserving the sanctity of the Constitution by ensuring that amendments do not destroy its core principles.
Background of the Case:
Minerva Mills, a textile mill in Karnataka, was nationalized by the government under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974. The owners of the mill challenged the nationalization, arguing that it violated their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 19 (Right to Freedom). While the nationalization was pending in court, Parliament passed the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which expanded Parliament’s amending powers under Article 368.
The 42nd Amendment made two crucial changes:
- Clause (4) of Article 368 stated that any amendment made by Parliament could not be questioned in any court.
- Clause (5) of Article 368 declared that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited and included the power to alter or repeal any provision, including Fundamental Rights.
These amendments raised serious concerns about the potential for abuse of power by Parliament and the erosion of judicial review.
Key Issues Raised
- Can Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution be absolute and unlimited?
- Is judicial review an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure?
- Can Directive Principles of State Policy have precedence over Fundamental Rights?
Arguments by the Petitioners
-
Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners argued that nationalizing the mill deprived them of their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19, which guaranteed equality and the right to carry on business.
-
Limited Power of Parliament:
It was contended that the 42nd Amendment, particularly clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, granted unchecked power to Parliament, thereby undermining the basic structure of the Constitution.
-
Judicial Review:
The petitioners emphasized that judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution. Without it, the legislature could amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, with impunity.
Arguments by the Respondents (Union of India)
-
Supremacy of Parliament:
The Union of India argued that Parliament, as the representative of the people, must have the ultimate authority to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
-
Primacy of Directive Principles:
It was contended that Directive Principles of State Policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution, should take precedence over Fundamental Rights to ensure socio-economic justice.
-
Validity of 42nd Amendment:
The respondents defended the validity of the 42nd Amendment, stating that it was necessary to empower Parliament to implement progressive legislation without interference from the judiciary.
Judgment
The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on July 31, 1980, by a 4:1 majority. The key highlights of the judgment are:
- Doctrine of Basic Structure Reaffirmed:
The Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine propounded in the Keshavananda Bharati case. It held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute and cannot be exercised in a way that damages or destroys its basic structure.
- Striking Down Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368:
The Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Amendment, declaring them unconstitutional. It ruled that these clauses violated the basic structure of the Constitution by curtailing judicial review and granting unlimited amending power to Parliament.
- Balance Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:
The Court maintained that while Directive Principles are essential for achieving socio-economic justice, they cannot override Fundamental Rights. A harmonious balance must be maintained between the two to uphold the spirit of the Constitution.
- Judicial Review as Part of Basic Structure:
The judgment held that judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution’s basic structure. It ensures that no law or constitutional amendment enacted by Parliament violates the essential features of the Constitution.
Significance of the Judgment
- Limitation on Parliamentary Power:
The judgment reinforced that Parliament cannot have unlimited power to amend the Constitution. Amendments that alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution are invalid.
- Judicial Review Strengthened:
By striking down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, the judgment strengthened the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution. Judicial review acts as a check on the legislature’s power, ensuring that constitutional amendments do not undermine the core principles of the Constitution.
- Preservation of Fundamental Rights:
The judgment ensured that Fundamental Rights cannot be subordinated to Directive Principles. Both must be interpreted in a manner that preserves the dignity of individuals while promoting socio-economic welfare.
-
Protection Against Authoritarianism:
The ruling safeguarded the democratic framework of the country by preventing the concentration of power in Parliament. It upheld the principle of separation of powers, ensuring that the judiciary remains an independent check on the legislature.
Criticism and Aftermath
The judgment was praised for preserving constitutional supremacy and preventing the erosion of individual rights. However, some critics argued that it limited Parliament’s ability to implement socio-economic reforms aimed at reducing inequality.
In subsequent cases, such as Waman Rao vs Union of India (1981) and S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994), the basic structure doctrine was further upheld, cementing its place in Indian constitutional law.
