K.

R MANGALAM UNIVERSITY

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ASSIGNMENT-II

Submitted to: Dr. Inderpreet
Submitted by: Lalit Khatana
BALLB IV Semester
1805170039
Minerva Mills Vs. Union of India
(AIR 1980 SC 1789)

 FACT:

The Parliament in order to serve general public interest came up with a noble solution by
reconstructing bad assets of companies having importance to the general public. Therefore, in
accordance with the achievement of the said solution the Parliament enacted The sick textile
undertakings (taking over of management) Act, 1974 [Act no. 57 of 1974] on December 24,
1974.

The preamble to the act contained the following word “An Act to provide for the acquisition
and transfer of the sick textile undertakings, and the right, title and interest of the owners in
respect of the sick textile undertakings, specified in the First Schedule with a view to re-
organizing and rehabilitating such sick textile undertakings so as to subserve the interests of
the general public by the augmentation of the production and distribution, at fair prices, of
different varieties of cloth and yarn, and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto”. Therefore, the said act aimed at providing general public commodities at fair prices
and to recover sick textile undertaking so that general masses won’t suffer.

Minerva Mills was a textile industry in the State of Karnataka engaged in the mass
production of silk clothes and provided market to the general public. The Central Govt. was
suspicious that company fulfilled the criteria to be classified as a sick industry. Therefore, the
Central Govt. in 1970 appointed a committee u/s 15 of the Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951 for making a full detailed report analyzing the affairs of Minerva
Mills. Relying on the Committee’s report, on October 19, 1971 the Central govt. empowered
National Textile Corporation Limited (a body under the 1951 act) to take over the
management of Minerva Mills u/s 18A of the 1951 act.

Earlier through 39th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1975 the Parliament inserted
Nationalization Act, 1974 into Ninth Schedule which means that any challenge on the said
act was outside the purview of judicial review. Now, the petitioner was not able to challenge
this aspect of 39th amendment since this remedy was barred by 42nd Amendment. The
Parliament after suffering massive defeat in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain[1]in
order to make its power and authority supreme passed 42nd amendment (as discussed earlier
in Indira Nehru Gandhi summary) to bar any challenge on constitutional amendments in
courts of law. Therefore, the main issue before the court was to check the constitutionality of
42nd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1976.
ISSUE:
Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Parliament’s power of amending the constitution is limited and there are inherent
limitations within the Constitution to limit the scope of amendment under article 368.

2. The scope of Article 368 is just to amend the constitution in a way such that there is
no change in the basic structure of the Constitution.

3. Though the state is obligated by the Constitution that while making laws they have to
compulsorily look into the Directive Principles of the State Policy[3] however,
achievement of such DPSP’s is only through permissible means. The Parliament in
order to achieve DPSP’s cannot override Fundamental Rights set out in Part III.

4. 42nd Amendment under section 55 strips off the affected parties there right to legal
remedy which is a basic essence of democracy. In a democratic state where laws such
as mentioned u/s 55 of 42nd Amendment are made the democracy is sure to collapse.

5. Striking a harmonious balance between the provisions of Part III & Part IV is where
justice lies and making one part subservient to another would only lead to chaos.

6. There would be no meaning to the democracy if the powers of an institution are to be

made absolute by the Constitution.To run a smooth democracy there should be checks
& balances upon each institution of the government.

7. There need not necessarily be violation of Part III for fulfillment of provisions of Part
IV.

 Respondent’s Arguments

1. If in course of achieving the DPSP’s there is unintentional injury to Fundamental

rights then it cannot be said as violation of Basic Structure.

2. The directive principles itself are integral for the functioning of the nation therefore,
achievement of these integral principles cannot be said as violation of Basic structure,

3. Further, if any harm is caused to the Part III provisions then it cannot be termed as
violation of Basic structure.

4. The parliament, in order to achieve the hard to get goals mentioned under Part IV,
must be supreme in its sphere & there should not be any sort of limitation upon it.
Therefore, there should not be any implied or inherent limitations upon the amending
power of Parliament.

5. This conflict between the hierarchy of provisions is an issue of academic interest

therefore, the courts should remain aloof of such issues.
JUDGEMENT:
The newly added clause 5 has the effect of even repealing the entire constitution and change
it into a totalitarian constitution as per the political exigencies of the ruling political party &
still it won’t be a ground for a challenge in the court because of the combined reading of
Clause 4&5 of 42nd Amendment. Depriving the courts their power of judicial review is
making Fundamental Rights a box of rhetoric dreams as they would never be granted and
rights without remedies.The court relying on Kesavananda opined that the power to amend
under Art. 368 is not a power to destroy. In the above said decision the court clearly
mentioned the scope of amendment under Article 368. The court answered about the extent
of the word “Amendment”. The court found that the word “amend” in the provision of Article
368 stands for a restrictive connotation and could not ascribe to a fundamental change. To
understand it simply; the parliament in order to pass a constitutionally valid amendment, the
particular amendment is subject to the application of Basic Structure test and has to pass it.

The court also explained the relationship between the provisions of Part III & Part IV of the
Constitution. The court said that the entire Indian Constitution rests upon the foundation of
Part III & Part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over another will be shaking the
foundation of the Constitution. Striking a harmonious balance between the provisions of Part
III & Part IV is where justice lies and making one part subservient to another would only lead
to chaos. The provisions of Part IV must be achieved but without abrogation of FR’s and
anything which shakes this balance violates the essential balance of the Constitution.
Therefore, the court in strict terms laid down that the balance between DPSP’s & FR’s is
Basic Structure of the Constitution.

As regards to Section 4 of the amendment act 1976 which tried to separate Article 14 and 19
from Article 31 C this was held void as it destroyed the basic feature. The articles mentioned
under Article 14 and 19 are essential elementary articles n modern democracies. Most of the
recent laws are passed to satisfy the obligations of DPSP because of which Art. 14 & 19 have
stood withdrawn. These rights are clearly without any doubt universal because of their
presence in Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, restoring the judgment of
Kesavananda on the point of Art. 31 C the court struck down Section 4 of the amendment act
1976.

Bhagwati J. agreed with the majority in striking down Section 55 of the amendment act since
it made judicial review of the amendments impossible. In his view this exclusion of judicial
review is indirectly enlarging the scope of Parliament’s amending capacity. Regarding Cl. 5
he wrote that it cannot remove any doubt which did not existed. However, the amendment in
Article 31 C was held valid by him because he was of the opinion that the court should not on
first hand hold any law made under it unconstitutional. In his opinion the courts should look
into the pith of the law by following Doctrine of Pith& Substance. If the law is substantially
connected to the provisions mentioned under DPSP’s then it would be a constitutional law
and on the contrary if there is no nexus between the law and the DPSP’s it would be surely
struck down.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
Indira Gandhi government after feeling aggrieved by the decision of the apex court in Indira
Gandhi Nehru v. Raj Narain passed the 42nd Amendment Act in the year 1976. This
amendment was a black stain on the noble provision of article 368 i.e. Constitutional
Amendment. This amendment made explicit something which no one can imagine from a
democratically elected government. This amendment made the challenge of Constitutional
Amendments in the courts of law unjustifiable, further it clearly laid down that there is no
sort of limitation on the Parliament’s competency when it comes to Constitutional
Amendments. This amendment was made so that Parliament can without fear of any
institution do whatever necessary to satisfy their political greed. This amendment even gave
the power to parliament to rewrite entire Constitution and turn this Democratic nation into a
Totalitarian regime. Earlier the courts had the power to shed water on malicious acts of
legislature however after enactment of the 1976 amendment act the courts were stripped off
this power. The arguments that the government advanced in defense of such a horrific law
was that to achieve the goals enunciated in Part IV it is necessary to make Parliament
Supreme when in reality the Parliament was making it escape from the clutches of Judiciary.
The Parliament was contending that since Part IV provisions are also basic structure
therefore, the achievement of such provisions cannot be termed as violation of basic
structure. The legislature also said that if an unintentional injury is caused to Part III
provisions in the process of fulfillment of Part IV provisions it would not be a violation of
basic features of the Constitution.

The apex court in the said judgment rejected all the contention raised by the legislature. It
held that Section 55 of the amendment act 1976(through which courts were stripped off their
power to entertain challenge) is unconstitutional since it violates the basic structure.
Therefore, the court struck down the said sections. The court opined that snatching from the
citizens their power to seek constitutional remedies which were termed as Heart & Soul of
the Constitution is an unpardonable wrong to the Constitution. This would cause an
irreversible damage to the sanctity of the Constitution & hurt its spirit. The court very well
pointed out in the decision that it is not the function of the judges to question the validity of
laws rather it is their duty. The parliament cannot even by an unanimous vote in both houses
strip this right because Judicial Review is basic structure of the Constitution. Relying on the
analogy of Justice Hegde &Mukkerjea the court said that some features are basic while other
are circumstantial and where the latter may be changed the former can never be changed
because it will change the whole spirit of those features.The court also explained the
relationship between the provisions of Part III & Part IV where it held that the entire Indian
constitution is based upon the foundation of these provisions. Over emphasis on one part will
be injustice to another part. There can be achievement of Part IV provisions without the
abrogation of Part III provisions. The court also laid down that this harmonious relation
between Part III & Part IV is basic feature of Constitution. Bhagwati J. wrote the minority
opinion in which he dissented with the majority and held that the courts have to look into the
substance of law, if it is actually for fulfillment for Part IV provisions only then it will be
constitutional.
CONCLUSION:

This judgment was another decision where the apex court applied the doctrine of
Basic Structure laid down in Kesavananda Bharti. The judgment unanimously struck
down 42nd Amendment to the extent of striking down Section 55 of the Amendment
act 1976. The importance of the judgment lies in the way it grants finality to the
debate that was going on since 1951. The judgment finally rests the debate on the
point of limitation on parliament’s power in amending the constitution when it held
that the parliament cannot amend basic structure of the constitution. Parliament since
the Golaknath decision is indulging in proving its supremacy over other institutions
as well as over democracy itself in one way or another; direct or indirect. After
successive defeats in Golakanath, Kesavananda Bharti & Indira Nehru Gandhi the
parliament desperately amended the Constitution and inserted a direct law claiming
that there can be no limitation on Parliament’s power of amendment as well as there
can be no challenge in courts of law on the amendments. This regressive and
draconian law was passed by parliament in order to prove its supremacy. The court
was called upon to decide the constitutionality of such draconian law. The court
without giving any other vague interpretations or fearing the mighty government
upheld the epic Kesavananda decision. The court gave a unanimous decision that such
amendment which restricts the challenge of amendments in the courts of law and
which removes all restriction on the power of parliament are void and violative of
Basic structure of the constitution. The court held that Judicial Review is something
that they cannot take away eve with making law.

The court also explained the relationship between the provisions of Part III and Part
IV and held that in process of achieving Part IV provisions there shall be no
abrogation of Fundamental Rights. The court justifies this proposition on the basis
that the foundation of constitution is the harmonious relation between Fundamental
Rights & Directive Principles of the State Policy. Striking a harmonious balance
between the provisions of Part III & Part IV is where justice lies and making one part
subservient to another would only lead to chaos. The provisions of Part IV must be
achieved but without abrogation of FR’s and anything which shakes this balance
violates the essential balance of the Constitution. Therefore, the court in strict terms
laid down that the balance between DPSP’s & FR’s is Basic Structure of the
Constitution.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 http://lawtimesjournal.in/minerva-mills-vs-union-of-india-case-summary/

 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj NarainA.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2299.

 [2]INDIA CONST. art. 368(4).

 [3]INDIA CONST.art. 37.