PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

TOPIC: CASE ANALYSIS II

NAME: R. SAKTHIVEL - 20191BAL0057

T. RAGUL - 20191BAL0058
G. RAJESH - 20191BAL0061
R. SRIMUGAN - 20191BAL0080

SUBMITTED TO: Proff. ABHIJIT B

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 15.04.2020

 MINERVA MILLS V. UNION OF INDIA

Equivalent Citation - AIR 1980 SC 1789, 1981 SCR (1) 206

Petitioner : Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors.
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgement : 31/07/1980
Bench: Y.V. Chandrachud (then CJI), A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.S. Kailasam & P.N.
Bhagwati JJ.

Referred Cases: 1. India Gandhi Nehru v. Raj Narain.

2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

INTRODUCTION:

Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors v Union of India and Ors is one of the most important
judgments which guarded the basic structure of the constitution from being amended by
parliament. The constitutionality of section 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1986
gave the parliament unlimited powers to amend the constitution and hence were struck
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

FACTS:

Minerva Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner no. 1/ the Company) is a
limited company dealing in textiles in Karnataka. The other petitioners are the
shareholders in Minerva Mills. On August 20, 1970, the central govt in apprehension of
the substantial fall in production of Minerva Mills, appointed a committee under section
15 of the Industries (Development & Regulation ) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as
the IDR Act) to make an investigation of the affairs of Minerva Mills Ltd. After this
implication made by the central govt, On October 19, 1971,after the submission of the
committee report, the central Government passed an order under section 18A of the
1951 Act that authorised the National Textile Corporation Ltd, to take over the
management of the Mills on the ground of mismanagement of the company affairs.
Hence, this undertaking was nationalised and taken over by the Central Government
under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974
(hereinafter referred as the Nationalization Act). Thereafter, the petitioners challenged
this order before the High Court. The High Court, however, dismissed their petition. The
petitioners, therefore, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under
article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950. They challenged the constitutionality and
validity of the following: Section 5(b), 19(3), 21 (read with 2nd schedule), 25 and 27, of
the Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 order of the Central
Government dated October 19,1971 Section 4 and 55 of the constitution (Forty Second
Amendment) Act, 1976; and the primacy given to the Directive principles of state policy
over the fundamental Rights.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

1) Whether the amendments introduced by Section 4 and 55 of the Constitution

( 42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 damage the basic structure of the Constitution ?
2)Whether directive principles of State policy contained in part IV can have primacy
over fundamental rights conferred by part III of the constitution?

ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER:

The argument of the petitioners was that there were inherent or implied
limitations on the power of amendment and therefore Article 368 did not confer power
on parliament to amend the constitution so as to destroy the essential or basic elements
of features of the constitution. The basic structure of the constitution rests on the
foundation that while the directive principles are the mandatory ends of government,
those ends can be achieved only through permissible means which are mentioned in
part III of the Constitution. If Article 31C which was amended by the 42nd Amendment is
allowed to remain the same,it will confer an unrestricted license on the legislature and
the executive, both at the center and in the states, which ultimately destroys the
democracy and results in establishment of an authoritarian regime. Section 4 of the
42nd Amendment has robbed the fundamental rights of their supremacy as if there were
a permanent emergency in operation. It is impossible to envisage that destruction of the
fundamental freedoms guaranteed by part III is necessary for achieving the objective of
some of the directive principles.It was believed that the Indian Constitution was
founded on the bedrock of the balance between parts III and IV. The harmony and
balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of
the basic structure of the Constitution. Effect of giving immunity to laws enacted for the
purpose of giving effect to any one or more of the Directive principles would, in reality
and substance, wipe out Articles 14 and 19 from the Constitution and that would affect
the basic structure of the constitution. The consequence of this exclusion of the power
of judicial review by Section 55 of the constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, which
inserted Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Article 368 would be that, the limitation on the
amending power of parliament would become non-existent and the amending power of
parliament would stand enlarged.

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:

Securing the implementation of directive principles by the elimination of

obstructive legal procedures cannot ever be said to destroy or damage the basic
features of the constitution. Further, laws made for securing the objectives of part IV
would necessarily be in public interest. A law which fulfils the directive of Article 38 is
incapable of abrogating fundamental freedoms or of damaging the basic structure itself
is founded on the principle of justice-social, economic and political. The unamended
Article 31C having been upheld by the majority in Kesavananda Bharati case, the
amended Article 31C must be held to be valid, especially since it has not brought about
a qualitative change in comparison with the provisions of the unamended article and
comes within the sweeping power of amendment under Article 368. Besides, the
directive principles being themselves fundamental in the governance of the country, no
amendment of the constitution in order to achieve the ends specified in the directive
principles can ever alter the basic structure of the constitution. The issue is too wide and
academic and it is the settled practice of the court not to decide academic questions.
The deprivation of some or the fundamental rights for the purpose of achieving welfare
of people cannot possibly amount to the constitution.

JUDGEMENT:

This landmark Judgment was delivered on July 31, 1980. The judgment was divided into
4:1, Y.V. Chandrachud (then CJI) writing on behalf of himself and (A.C. Gupta, N.L.
Untwalia, P.S. Kailsam JJ.) while Justice P.N. Bhagwati wrote the dissenting opinion.
The majority struck down Section 55 & 4 of the 42nd Amendment as it was considered
to be violating the basic structure thereby upholding the Basic Structure doctrine laid
down by Kesavananda bharti. On the other hand, Bhagwati J gave a dissenting opinion
in the sense that he agreed with the majority on the point of striking down section 55
however he dissented with the majority on the point of Section 4 of 42nd Amendment.
The court held that the newly introduced Clause 4&5 were actually inserted to bar the
courts to entertain any challenge on the question of validity of the constitutional
amendments. The court delivered that our Constitution is founded on a nice balance of
power among the three wings of the state namely the Legislature, the Executive & the
Judiciary and it is the prime function of the Judges nay their duty to pronounce upon the
validity of laws. The court held Section 55 of the amendment act 1976 as void since it
was found to remove all the restrictions on the power of Parliament under Article 368.
The court rightly interpreted the true object of these new clauses which was to throw
away the limitations imposed by Kesavananda on Parliament.
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. The court relying on the case of
Kesavananda Bharati v.State of kerala delivered 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. It was said that the parliament in order to pass
a constitutionally valid amendment, the particular amendment has to 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.Giving
absolute primacy to one over another will be destroying the foundation of the
Constitution.The provisions of Part IV must be achieved but without violation of the
fundamental rights 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. With regards to
Section 4 of the amendment act 1976 which tried to separate Article 14 and 19 from
Article 31 C it was held void as it was observed to destroy the basic feature. The articles
mentioned under Article 14 and 19 are essential articles in modern democracies.
Therefore, restoring the judgment of Kesavananda bharti 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.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 true nature of the law by
following Doctrine of Pith & Substance. If the law is substantially connected to the
provisions mentioned under DPSP’ 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.
Therefore, the court by 4:1 majority held sections 4 & 55 of the 42nd Constitutional
(Amendment) Act, 1976 unconstitutional.

CONCLUSION:
This judgment was another decision where the apex court applied the doctrine of Basic
Structure laid down in Kesavananda bharti. The judgment struck down 42nd
Amendment to the extent of striking down Section 55 of the Amendment act 1976. The
Judgment provided proved to be valuable because it helped to put an end 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.The court gave an
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 also reiterated
Kesavananda’s ruling that the power of Parliament to amend the constitution under Art.
368 is restrictive in nature. The court relied on the description of Basic Structure by
Hegde &Mukherjeajj which says that only circumstantial features can be changed and
basic features cannot be changed.