Sear

Minerva Mills v.
Union of India

Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 356
of 1977; case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789)[1] is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of
India[2] that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India.[3]
 Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union Of India

Court Supreme Court of India

Full case name Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs Union Of India
and Ors.

Decided 31 July 1980

Citation(s) AIR 1980 SC 1789

Case opinions

Clause 5 of Article 368 transgresses the limitation on the amending power of Parliament and is
hence unconstitutional.

Court membership

Judges sitting Y. V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice), P. N.

Bhagwati, A. C. Gupta, N. L. Untwalia, P. S.
Kailasam.

Case opinions

Decision by Y. V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice)

Concur/dissent P. N. Bhagwati

In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation
of the basic structure doctrine. The court ruled that the power of the parliament to amend the
constitution is limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited
power to grant itself an unlimited power. In addition, a majority of the court also held that the
parliament's power to amend is not a power to destroy. Hence the parliament cannot
emasculate the fundamental rights of individuals, and also includes the right to liberty and
equality (which is not a fundamental right but considered a basic structure of the
Constitution) .[4]

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.[5]

Judgement

(5) For the removal of easy 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 Y. V.

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 by the
exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited
one.[6]

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 of Indian Constitution. By a
verdict of 4-1, with Justice P. N. Bhagwati dissenting, the court held section 4 of the 42nd
Amendment to be unconstitutional.[3] 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, added art
368(4) & art 368(5) in indian constitution.[4]

References

1. "Judgement Copy" (https://article51a.in/wp-content/uploads/Minerva-Mills-Vs-Union-

of-India.pdf) (PDF). Article 51A.

2. "Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union Of India and Ors" (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/19
39993/) . Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 17 July 2012.

3. Raghav Sharma (16 April 2008). "Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors: A
Jurisprudential Perspective". SSRN 1121817 (https://ssrn.com/abstract=1121817) .

4. "Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120
404195325/http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm) . Open Archive. Archived from the
original (http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm) on 4 April 2012. Retrieved 17 July 2012.

5. Hart, Henry C. (April 1980). "The Indian Constitution: Political Development and Decay".
Asian Survey. 20 (4): 428–451. doi:10.2307/2643867 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F264
3867) . JSTOR 2643867 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2643867) .

6. R.C. Bhardwaj, ed. (1 January 1995). Constitution Amendment in India (https://books.go

ogle.com/books?id=4yp0yhzdKWIC) (Sixth ed.). New Delhi: Northern Book Centre.
p. 12. ISBN 9788172110659. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Minerva_Mills_v._Union_of_India&oldid=109
7743983"

Last edited 13 days ago by NonNerd