Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) – Landmark Judgment on Basic Structure Doctrine and the 42nd Amendment in Indian Constitutional Law

Introduction

In Indian constitutional law, Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) stands as a landmark case that reshaped the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, particularly in the context of the “basic structure” doctrine. This landmark judgment addressed the 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution, enacted during a period of political turmoil and the Emergency era (1975-1977). The amendment sought to limit judicial review while elevating Directive Principles of State Policy over Fundamental Rights, raising concerns about the potential erosion of constitutional safeguards.

In this case, Minerva Mills, a textile manufacturing company, challenged certain provisions introduced by the 42nd Amendment, which curtailed judicial intervention in matters related to economic policies and labor rights. Beyond addressing the grievances of Minerva Mills, the Supreme Court deliberated on the extent of parliamentary power in amending the Constitution. The Court’s judgment underscored that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute and must respect the Constitution’s foundational principles supporting democracy and justice in India.

Facts of the Case

Minerva Mills, a textile manufacturing company based in Bangalore (now Bengaluru), Karnataka, faced financial hardships and was designated as a “sick industrial company” under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act of 1974. This designation permitted the Indian government to nationalize and take over financially struggling textile companies.

Invoking Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (Right to Freedom), particularly the right to property under Article 19(1)(f), Minerva Mills challenged its nationalization. The company contended that the nationalization order, protected under the revised Article 31C by the 42nd Amendment, was unconstitutional, as it undermined the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles by prioritizing the latter.

The 42nd Amendment introduced major constitutional changes:

• Amendment of Article 31C: Allowed any law passed to implement Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) to override Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19, effectively placing DPSPs above Fundamental Rights.
• Amendment of Article 368: Empowered Parliament to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, without judicial review.
  Minerva Mills argued that the nationalization ordinance protected under the revised Article 31C conflicted with the Constitution’s core framework, as it elevated Directive Principles above Fundamental Rights. Petitioners also questioned the constitutional legality of the 42nd Amendment, arguing that it granted Parliament excessive power, undermining foundational elements of the Constitution.

Legal Issues

The Supreme Court deliberated on several core legal issues:

1. Constitutionality of the 42nd Amendment: Was the 42nd Amendment, which limited judicial review and elevated Directive Principles above Fundamental Rights, constitutionally valid?
2. Limits of Parliamentary Power: Did the 42nd Amendment exceed the permissible limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, specifically regarding the “basic structure” doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)?
3. Judicial Review: Did the provisions limiting judicial scrutiny of constitutional changes encroach upon the Constitution’s foundational framework?

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners, represented by the eminent lawyer Nani Palkhivala, argued that the 42nd Amendment’s provisions, particularly sections 4 and 55, contradicted the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati. They contended that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and cannot interfere with essential features, including judicial review and the protection of Fundamental Rights.

Judicial review, according to the petitioners, is crucial for upholding the rule of law and safeguarding human rights. The petitioners argued that Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, which restricted judicial review, directly threatened the democratic framework of the Constitution. Although Directive Principles are essential, they should not supersede Fundamental Rights, which guarantee freedoms under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The petitioners emphasized that while both Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are integral to the Constitution, the former cannot infringe upon the latter.

The petitioners asserted that the Constitution’s supremacy is paramount, and any attempt by Parliament to grant itself unchecked amending power is unconstitutional. They argued that allowing such amendments would erode individual rights and undermine the foundation of democracy.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Union of India defended the amendments as necessary for promoting its socialistic agenda. The government argued that the 42nd Amendment, which prioritized laws intended to advance social welfare over Fundamental Rights, was aligned with the Constitution’s objectives of achieving social justice and equality.

The government maintained that the Directive Principles of State Policy are essential to achieving socio-economic justice and should be prioritized to fulfill the Constitution’s goals. It further argued that Parliament holds the power to amend the Constitution, including provisions related to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, within the scope allowed by Article 368.

Judgment

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that while Parliament possesses the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is limited by the basic structure doctrine. This principle, initially established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, prohibits Parliament from altering or eliminating essential attributes of the Constitution’s core framework.

The Court found Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional:

• Invalidity of Section 4: This section amended Article 31C, giving precedence to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. The Court ruled this amendment unconstitutional, affirming that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are equally important and should be balanced. Overriding Fundamental Rights to enforce Directive Principles was deemed an infringement on personal freedoms.
• Invalidity of Section 55: This section limited judicial review of constitutional amendments, preventing courts from challenging amendments at any time. The Court ruled this provision unconstitutional, as it compromised the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional rights. Judicial review was reaffirmed as an essential element of the Constitution, critical for the stability of law and the protection of personal rights.
  The judgment emphasized that Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are complementary parts of the Constitution. While Directive Principles aim to promote social welfare and justice, they cannot override Fundamental Rights, which are vital for individual dignity and freedom.

Views of the Majority and Dissenting Opinions

The five-judge bench delivered its ruling with a 4-1 majority. Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud authored the majority opinion, while Justice P.N. Bhagwati dissented, favoring a broader interpretation of Parliament’s amending power.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) solidified the basic structure doctrine and reaffirmed the limitations on Parliament’s amending powers under Article 368. The judgment underscored that the Constitution, not Parliament, is supreme, and any attempt to bypass the judiciary’s role in protecting Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is unconstitutional.

The Court declared Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional, reinforcing the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. By limiting Parliament’s amending power, the Minerva Mills judgment upheld the supremacy of the Constitution and the judiciary’s role in protecting India’s foundational democratic values.

The Minerva Mills case expanded the basic structure doctrine by including judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as core constitutional elements. It emphasized that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited and cannot be exercised arbitrarily to destroy its basic structure. This landmark ruling has had a profound impact on constitutional amendments, individual rights protection, and the democratic framework of India.

References:

http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/EC5E2ACD-7E92-4FBD-A268-E518A555D83A.pdfhttps://www.nextias.com/blog/basic-structure-doctrine/

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-commentary-on-minerva-mills-ltd-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors/https://blog.ipleaders.in/basic-structure-doctrine/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/