This article has been written by Maria Sharwari from Surendranath Law College

Introduction

Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1980 SC 1789) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India. The ruling struck down clause 4 and 5 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 enacted during the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

The Supreme Court made important clarifications on the application of the fundamental structure concept in the Minerva Mills case. The court found that the constitution limits parliament’s ability to modify the constitution. As a result, the parliament cannot use its limited authority to grant itself infinite authority. Furthermore, a majority of the court decided that parliament’s ability to alter is not the same as its power to destroy.

The verdict of the case makes clear that it is the constitution which is supreme; not the parliament. The balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution,” the Supreme Court of India decided in the Minerva Mills case. They are the foundation of the entire social reform effort. The Directive Principles can be implemented by changing the Fundamental Rights, as long as the modification does not jeopardise or destroy the Constitution’s core structure.

Background

The question whether Fundamental Rights can be amended by the Parliament under Article 368 came for consideration of the Supreme Court within a year of the Constitution coming into force. In the Shankari Prasad case (1951), the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act (1951), which curtailed the right to property, was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The word ‘law’ in Article 13 includes only ordinary laws and not the constitutional amendment acts (constituent laws). Therefore, the Parliament can abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting a constitutional amendment act and such a law will not be void under Article 13.

But in the Golak Nath case (1967), the Supreme Court reversed its earlier stand. In that case, the constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964), which inserted certain state acts in the Ninth Schedule, was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fundamental Rights are given a ‘transcendental and immutable’ position and hence, the Parliament cannot abridge or take away any of these rights. A constitutional amendment act is also a law within the meaning of Article 13 and hence, would be void for violating any of the Fundamental Rights.

The Parliament reacted to the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golak Nath case (1967) by enacting the 24th Amendment Act (1971). This Act amended Articles 13 and 368. It declared that the Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights under Article 368 and such an act will not be a law under the meaning of Article 13.

However, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court overruled its judgement in the Golak Nath case (1967). It upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act (1971) and stated that Parliament is empowered to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights. At the same time, it laid down a new doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ (or ‘basic features’) of the Constitution. It ruled that the constituent power of Parliament under Article 368 does not enable it to alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. This means that the Parliament cannot abridge or take away a Fundamental Right that forms a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

The doctrine of basic structure of the constitution was reaffirmed and applied by the Supreme Court in the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975). In this case, the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the 39th Amendment Act (1975) which kept the election disputes involving the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Lok Sabha outside the jurisdiction of all courts. The court said that this provision was beyond the amending power of Parliament as it affected the basic structure of the constitution.

Again, the Parliament reacted to this judicially innovated doctrine of ‘basic structure’ by enacting the 42nd Amendment Act (1976). This Act amended Article 368 and declared that there is no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament and no amendment can be questioned in any court on any ground including that of the contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights.

However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) invalidated this provision as it excluded judicial review which is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution. Applying the doctrine of ‘basic structure’ with respect to Article 368, the court held that:

“Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of the Constitution and, therefore, the limitations on that power cannot be destroyed. In other words, Parliament cannot, under article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic features. The donee of a limited power cannot by the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one”.

Facts of the Case

• Minerva Mills was a textile mill in Karnataka. It was largely involved in the large-scale commercial production of silk fabrics.
• At the time, the government was fully committed to its socialist agenda, and it was acquiring failing businesses for public use.
• Following a significant decline in production, the Central Government established a committee under section 15 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 to investigate the Company.
• The minerva mills were treated similarly, with the government declaring it a sick enterprise and seizing control.
• Due to mismanagement of the firm’s activities, which was highlighted by passing an order under the aforementioned provision, the National Textile Corporation Ltd. was required by Section 18A of the Industries Act to take over the management of the company.
• The company was taken over in accordance with the terms of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, as a result of this action.
• Following that, a challenge to the takeover was filed in the High Court, but the case was dismissed. The corporation was unable to challenge the judgement in court since section 4 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment exempts any actions taken to enforce the socialist programme from judicial review.
• As a result, the petitioner challenged the legitimacy of Sections 4 and 55 of the 1976 Constitutional Amendment in the Supreme Court of India, submitting a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

Issues before the Court

The issues raised in the Minerva Mills Case are:

• Whether section 4 (amendment of Article 31C) and section 55 (amendment of Article 368) of the 42nd Amendment Act of the Indian Constitution destroy the basic structure.
• Whether Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) can lawfully overrule Fundamental Rights.
• Whether the amendment made to Article 31C is valid.

Arguments

Arguments of the Petitioner

• The petitioners were represented by Nani Palkhivala he was the ambassador of the Janata Government soon he felt the need to return to India to protect Human Rights so he argued the case on the behalf of the previous owners of the Minerva Mills.
• The amendment powers of the parliament are limited under Article 368. This amendment would allow parliament the creature of the Constitution to become its master.
• The court decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case mentioned that the Parliament has no authority to disturb the basic features of the Constitution.
• It was an obligation on the State to pass laws on the Directive Principle of the State policy but it should be done through permissible means it cannot overrule the Fundamental Rights.
• Due to section 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 no court would have the power to review the constitutional amendment passed by the Parliament this would damage the balance between the Judiciary and the Parliament.
• There would be a disbalance that would be created between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the State Policy there is a need to create a harmonious construction.
• Almost every law enacted by the government would one or the other way be associated with the Directive Principles.
• To give immunity to the Directive Principle would wipe out Article 19 and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Arguments of the Respondents

• The State was represented by the attorney general L.N. Sinha and additional solicitor general K.K. Venugopal they both were in a precarious position to defend the amendment passed the emergency era:
• Article 31C of the Indian Constitution reinforced the basic structure doctrine, Directive Principles provided goals in absence of Fundamental Rights.
• Any harm that is caused to the Fundamental Rights won’t amount to the violation of the basic structure doctrine.
• To achieve the goals framed under the Directive Principle of the State Policy powers of the Parliament should be supreme there should be no restrictions on its amendment powers.
• The issue related to academic interest should not be decided by the Court.
• The government through the naturalization process was assisting the company to raise loans.

The Judgment

After almost 7 years after the passage of the order passed by the Central Government to conduct the investigation, the decision was pronounced by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court with the Majority of 4:1.

Majority Opinion

The majority opinion was given by Justice Chandrachud on the behalf of Justice A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia and P.S. Kailasam.

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution 

• The parliament has the power to amend the Constitution but should be within its basic framework.
• The theory of unlimited power to amend the Constitution would alienate democracy and create a totalitarian State.
• The clause (4) is unconstitutional because it hampers the basic structure of the Constitution.
• The clause (5) was struck down because it restricted the court’s power of judicial review and amendment.

Article 31C of the Indian Constitution 

• If part IV subverts Part III of the Indian Constitution it would destroy the basic structure.
• Part IV needs to be achieved without the abrogation of Part II of the Constitution.
• The most elementary freedoms provided under Articles 19 and 14 of the Indian Constitution therefore should be preserved.
• Article 31 C of the Indian Constitution has removed two sides of the golden triangles (Articles 19, 14, and 21) which will cause serious harm to the people of this country.

Minority Opinion

The dissenting opinion was given by Justice Bhagwati.

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution

Justice Bhagawati was in favor of the majority decision in striking down section 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976:

• He opined that basic features are an integral part of the Constitution.
• The clause (4) is unconstitutional because it breached two basic features of the constitution First Limited amending power of the Parliament. Second Restriction on judicial review.
• The clause (5) is unconstitutional and void it had the effect of transforming the constitution into an uncontrolled one.

Article 31C of the Indian Constitution 

• Article 31C of the Constitution did not damage the basic structure but instead strengthened it.
• Non-Compliance with the Directive Principle would be unconstitutional and a breach of faith with the people.
• No law directly giving effect to the Directive Principle can be inconsistent with the vegetarian principle.
• If the law is substantially connected to the Directive Principle of the State Policy would be valid if there is no nexus then it would be struck down.

The decision of the Supreme Court

On 31st July 1980, the Court pronounced its judgment:

The Supreme Court deemed clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, which was added by section 55 of the Constitution’s 42nd Amendment in 1976, to be unconstitutional and void, and thus overruled the Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution. The court concluded that although the Parliament can change the Constitution, it cannot undermine or amend the basic structure of the Constitution.

The court ruled that, as it is a vital component of the Constitution’s framework, there must be congruence between Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Additionally, it was determined that Article 31C does not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution and is within the amending power of Parliament and was declared the amended Article 31C to be constitutional and valid.

Critical Analysis

After the historic Judgment in Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain, it was a huge setback for the Central Government which led to the passing of the 42nd amendment to curb the power of the judiciary on any amendments passed by the Parliament. Through the amendment, the Parliament tried to disbalance the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of the State Policy. The Majority opinion favored that the amendment caused a disbalance therefore it needed to be struck down. They contended that Fundamental Rights have a Unique place in civilized societies they are the Heart and Soul of the Indian Constitution.

Due to this amendment Directive Principle of the State Policy was given absolute power even being inconsistent with the Part-III(Fundamental Right) of the Constitution it can’t be struck down. They contended that there should be a right balance struck between both no one should have an unconditional power over another. The Minority decision was pronounced by Justice Bhagwati which contended that the Directive Principle of the State Policy nourishes the roots of the Democracy and plays a critical role in fertilizing the static provision of the Fundamental Rights.

The Majority opinion of the Judges to Section 5 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 was accurate because if Directive Principles precedes over the Fundamental Rights in the name of welfare various amendments would be passed that would be discriminative and against individual liberty through being unconstitutional won’t be struck down.

On the Second Part of the Amendment Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act which provided unlimited power to amend the Constitution the full bench of Judges were in favor of striking down this section again the bench was accurate in their pronouncement, they tried to create a disbalance with various organs of the Democracy this amendment would have provided untenable power to the Parliament the amendment would have been out of the scope of judicial review. The court striking it down held that the limited amending power of the Constitution is a part of the basic structure. The court allowed the Parliament to make altercations in the Constitution but should not be inconsistent with the basic structure.

Conclusion

The Minerva Mills case helped to establish a precedent for future constitutional cases. This case helped to prevent further abuses of fundamental rights in the future. In order to restore the Golden Triangle, the court’s decision in the Minerva Mills case was crucial. The importance of striking a balance between Parts III and IV, which cover Fundamental Rights and DPSP, respectively, was highlighted in this instance. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms the supremacy of the Constitution above Parliament.

In this case, the Court added two features to the list of basic structure features. Judicial review and the fundamental rights-DPSP balance were the two issues. The limited amending power of the Constitution was deemed a basic characteristic by the court.

After the judgment that was pronounced by the Supreme Court Justice Bhagwati received a fair share of criticism the Judges admitted that they didn’t have the chance to review the Judgment of one another. The Government in order to expand the amending power of the Parliament filed a review petition to overturn the significant judgment. This was rejected by the court. Even after four decades of the passing of the judgment text which was declared unconstitutional is still a part of the text. This was one out of many occasions where the Parliament was exhibiting his arrogance of power by manipulating the Constitution.

References

[1] Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1980 SC 1789)

[2] M Laxmikanth, Indian Polity;(Mc Graw Hill Education, Chennai, Fifth Ed, 2017)

[3] Wikipedia, “Minerva Mills v. Union of India”; available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerva (last visited on December 23, 2023)

[4] Kaarkuzhali Ekambaram, “Case Commentary on Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors”; available at: lawbhoomi.com/case88 (last visited on December 23, 2023)

[5] Darshit Vora, “Minerva Mills vs Union of India : a significant case that India has forgotten”; available at: blog.ipleaders.in/minerva (last visited on December 23, 2023)

[6]Abhinav Shukla, “Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. UOI: A Significant case that India should never forget”; available at: primelegal.in/2022/10/30 (last visited on December 23, 2023)

[7] Indian Kanoon, “Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980”; available at: indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/ (last visited on December 23, 2023)

[8] Gayatri Singh, “Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors. – Case Explained” available at: www.writinglaw.com/minerva (last visited on December 23, 2023)