Title – MINERVA MILLS LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA
Citation(s) – AIR 1980 SC 1789: 1981 SCR (1) 206
Bench – CJ Y.V.Chandrachud, Justices A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.S. Kailasam and P.N. Bhagwati
Delivered on – 31th July 1980
MINERVA MILLS LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA
INTRODUCTION –
Minerva Mills Ltd vs Union of India is a landmark decision of our Supreme Court which dealt with the ‘Basic structure doctrine’ that was propounded in the Keshavananda Bharti case.
BACKGROUND –
Minerva Mills Ltd, the plaintiff was a textile production company. In 1970, our Central Government appointed a committee under Section 15 of the Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951, to investigate the affairs of the Minerva Mills. Our government taught that there had been a substantial fall in the volume of production of the mill.
The committee presented its report in January 1971 to the government. Consequently, the government passed an order under Section 18A of the Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951, authorizing the National Textile Corporation Ltd to gain control over the management of the Minerva Mills. The order was based because the affairs of Mill are being regulated in the interest of the public.
Minerva Mill was nationalized and taken over by our Central Government courtesy of the Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalization) Act, 1974.
Petitioners challenged the following before the Court –
- Whether certain provisions of Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalization) Act, 1974 are Constitutionally valid?
- They challenged government order that authorized the National Textile Corporation Ltd to gain control over the management of the Minerva Mills.
- Whether Constitution (Thirty-Ninth Amendment) Act which placed the Nationalization Act as Entry 105 in the Ninth Schedule Constitutionally valid?
- Whether Article 31B of our Constitution is valid?
- Whether Section 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 Constitutionally valid?
ARGUMENTS –
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, because the constituent power of our Parliament under Article 368 cannot be exercised to destroy the basic structure.
The petitioners challenged the Constitutionality of the Constitution (Thirty-Ninth Amendment) Act, which placed the Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalization) Act, 1974, as of Entry 105 in the Ninth Schedule of our Constitution.
They challenged the primacy given to our Directive Principles of State Policy provided in Part IV over our fundamental rights provided in Part III of our Constitution.
They argued that Section 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, deprived them of their right to seek legal remedies, as the said section bars the ‘judicial review’.
The respondents contended that the issue drawn up for contemplation of the court that is the provisions of the Forty-Second Amendment of our Constitution which made Directive Principles of State Policy supreme to Fundamental Rights was ultra-virus is too wide and academic.
They argued that attaining the implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy by excluding obstructive legal procedures cannot be said to destroy the basic features of our Constitution they are made in the public interest.
The directive principles being themselves foundational in the governance of our country, no amendment to achieve the goals described in the directive principles can alter the basic structure of our Constitution.
They argued that a law that attains the directive of Article 38 is incapable of abrogating fundamental freedoms or damaging the basic structure of our Constitution in as much as that structure itself is established on the principles of justice, social, economic, and political.
Deprivation of some of our fundamental rights to bring about social order to achieve social, economic, and political justice cannot possibly amount to a destruction of the basic structure of our Constitution.
LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED –
- Whether the Section 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, are beyond the amending power of our Parliament under Article 368 of our Constitution?
- Whether the Directive Principles of State Policy provided in Part IV of our Constitution can have primacy over the fundamental rights conferred in Part III of our Constitution?
JUDGMENT –
The Supreme Court held that the introduced clause (5) of Article 368 infringes the limitations on the amending power of Parliament and hence is unconstitutional. Since Clause (4) and Clause (5) of Article 368 were interrelated, the Court declared Clause (4) as unconstitutional.
It was observed that Clause (5) of Article 368 had removed all limitations on the amending power of our Parliament and Clause (4) had deprived the courts of their ability to review any amendment to our Constitution. Hence, Clause (4) of Article 368 denies the citizens of a right promised by Article 32.
Directive Principles of State Policy are foundational in the governance of our country and Fundamental rights occupy a distinctive place in the lives of civilized societies. Parts III and IV together represent the core of the commitment to social revolution and they together are the conscience of our Constitution. Our Constitution is established on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. Giving absolute primacy to one over the other will disorganize the harmony of our Constitution. The Court held that the harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an indispensable feature of the basic structure of our Constitution.
CONCLUSION –
The 42nd Amendment Act made the challenge of Constitutional Amendments in the courts of law unjustifiable. It gave unlimited power to our Parliament to amend our Constitution. It gave the ability to our Parliament to rewrite the whole Constitution and turn our Democratic nation into a Totalitarian government.
However, the apex Court in Minerva Mill case held some of the provisions of the 42nd Amendment Act as unconstitutional. The case also sustained the ‘basic structure’ doctrine by holding that the balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy as being part of the basic structure of our Constitution.
SOURCE –
- P Jain, Constitution of India, Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu, 8th edition, LexisNexis, Printed by Saurabh Printers Pvt limited (2018).
- N SHUKLA, Constitution of India, Mahendra Pal Singh, 13th edition, Easter Book Company, Printed by Gopsons Papers Ltd (2019).
- The Constitution of India, by PM Bakshi
- The Constitution of India, Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department)
- https://lawtimesjournal.in/minerva-mills-vs-union-of-india-case-summary/
This blog is written by Kushal, KLE Society’s Law College.
Some more of Kushal BLOGs,
- LOCUST ATTACK: WREAKS HAVOC
- MOHORI BIBEE VS DHARMODAS GHOSE (Case Summary)
- CONTINGENT CONTRACTS
- THE BERUBARI UNION CASE (CASE SUMMARY)
- I.C. GOLAKNATH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER (CASE SUMMARY)
- CARLILL VS CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO (Case Summary)
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.
