CASE STUDY

MINERVA MILLS
Question # 1: What was the problem in the Minerva Mills case?
Answer: Minerva Mills Ltd is a limited company dealing in textiles. The
Central Government appointed a committee to make a full and
complete investigation of the affairs of the Minerva Mills, as it was the
opinion that there had been or was likely to be substantial fall in the
volume of Production. The said committee submitted its report to the
Government, based on which the Central Government passed an order
under Sec. 18A of the 1951 Act, authorizing the National Textile
Corporation Ltd, to take over the management of mills because its
affairs being managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest.

Question # 2: What do you understand by a landmark judgement?

Answer: Landmark Judgement in a judicial system is the one which has
never happened before and that makes new principles or creates
changes in the existing law. Landmark cases are used as a reference for
all the similar cases in future. Minerva Mills Ltd. And Others vs Union of
India and others is a landmark decision made by Supreme Court of
India. This was historical development, as Supreme Court had to fight
against the Parliament of India in a bid to assert the inviolability of the
constitution of India. In this case, Supreme Court upheld the
fundamental rights of the individual or the company to private property
and reaffirmed its authority to protect the basic structure of the
constitution. The object of the case is to establish the supremacy of the
Supreme Court and to oversee that the laws passed by the legislature
are in accordance with the constitution. In India, the Supreme Court
assumes it is its bounden duty to protect the basic structure of the
constitution.
Question # 3: In what way did the Minerva Mills case bring about such
a judgement.
Answer: In the Case, the Supreme Court declared sections 4 & 55 of the
42nd amendment as unconstitutional.
Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, had added clauses (4) and (5) to
Article 368 of the Constitution which read:
(4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part
III) made or purporting to have been made under this article whether
before or after the commencement of section 55 of the Constitution
(Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 shall be called in question in any
court on any ground.
(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be
no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to
amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this
Constitution under this article.
The above clauses were unanimously ruled as unconstitutional. Chief
Justice Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud explained in his opinion that
since, as had been previously held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala, the power of Parliament to amend the constitution was limited,
it could not by amending the constitution convert this limited power
into an unlimited power (as it had purported to do by the 42nd
amendment).
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 our Constitution
and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed. In
other words, Parliament can not, 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 and essential features.
The donee of a limited power cannot be the exercise of that power
convert the limited power into an unlimited one.
Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, had amended Article 31C of the
Constitution to accord precedence to the Directive Principles of State
Policy articulated in Part IV of the Constitution over the Fundamental
Rights of individuals articulated in Part III. By a verdict of 4-1, with
Justice Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati dissenting, the court held
section 4 of the 42nd Amendment to be unconstitutional.[2] Chief
Justice Chandrachud wrote:
Three Articles of our Constitution, and only three, stand between the
heaven of freedom into which Tagore wanted his country to awake and
the abyss of unrestrained power. They are Articles 14, 19 and 21.
Article 31C has removed two sides of that golden triangle which affords
to the people of this country an assurance that the promise held forth
by the preamble will be performed by ushering an egalitarian era
through the discipline of fundamental rights, that is, without
emasculation of the rights to liberty and equality which alone can help
preserve the dignity of the individual.
Question # 4: How important is any legislation in matters of private
property?
Answer: : Private property is the one in which the individual has the
complete ownership of the property. Private property is different from
the Public property, which is owned by a state entity. Private property
can be either personal property (consumption goods) or capital goods.
Private property is a legal concept defined and enforced by a country's
political system. The Indian Constitution balances the three wings of
the state, which are Legislature, Executive and Judiciary which is held
steadfastly with legal reasoning. The fundamental logic behind our
Constitution is that it has been given by the people to themselves and
placed on the bedrock of fundamental rights. If this right of the court is
taken away, then the entire Constitution falls on its face.
If the executive is to control the Constitution, then it is as good as the
country not having a Constitution at all. The fundamental rights will
have no relevance, for one is deprived of their defense in a court of law.
In other words, nothing should impinge on the fundamental rights. This
states true to the individual or companies to private property.