MINERVA MILLS LTD.

& ORS VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS

(1980 AIR 1789, 1981 SCR (1) 206)

PETITIONER: MINERVA MILLS LTD. & ORS.

Vs.
RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/07/1980
BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
BHAGWATI, P.N. GUPTA, A.C.
UNTWALIA, N.L. KAILASAM, P.S.
REFERRED CASES:
1. INDIRA GANDHI NEHRU V. RAJ NARAIN
2. KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS. STATE OF KERALA

BACKGROUND –
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of
India that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India?
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
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).
The ruling struck down articles 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976
enacted during the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
Let’s look into the details of the case to understand it better.

FACTS –
  The Parliament to serve the general public interest came up with a noble solution by
reconstructing bad assets of companies having importance to the general public. Therefore,
following the achievement of the said solution the Parliament enacted the sick textile
undertakings Act, 1974 on December 24, 1974.
 The preamble to the act contained the following words……. “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 to re-organize
and rehabilitate such sick textile undertakings 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 a market to the general public. The Central Govt. was suspicious that
the 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 the
Nationalization Act, 1974 into the 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 the 39th amendment since this remedy was barred by 42nd Amendment. The
Parliament after suffering a massive defeat in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain to make its
power and authority supreme passed the 42nd amendment to bar any challenge on constitutional
amendments in courts of law.
Therefore, the main issue before the court was to check the constitutionality of the 42nd Constitutional
(Amendment) Act, 1976.

ISSUE –
Constitutional Validity of 42nd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1976

JUDGEMENT –
 This landmark Judgment came 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 violated basic structure thereby upholding the Basic
Structure doctrine laid down by Kesavananda Bharti. Bhagwati J. wrote the 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 the 42nd Amendment.
 The court held that the newly introduced Clause 4&5 were inserted to bar the courts to entertain
any challenge on the question of the validity of the constitutional amendments. The court
beautifully described the importance of Judicial Review in the following words -
“Our Constitution is founded on a nice balance of power among the three wings of the state namely the
Legislature, the Executive & the Judiciary. It is the function of the Judges nay their duty to pronounce
upon the validity of laws. The court held Section 55 of the amendment act 1976 void since it first made
the challenge in court impossible & secondly it removes 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 changing 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 mentioned the scope of the amendment under
Article 368. The court answered about the extent of the word “Amendment”. The court found
that the word “amends” 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 to pass a
constitutionally valid amendment, the particular amendment is subject to the application of the
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 the Basic Structure of the
Constitution.
 As regards Section 4 of the amendment act 1976 which tried to separate Articles 14 and 19 from
Article 31 C this was held void as it destroyed the basic feature. The articles mentioned under
Articles 14 and 19 are essential elementary articles in 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 the
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 a 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 exist. However, the amendment in Article
31 C was held valid by him because he thought that the court should not on the first handhold
any law made under it unconstitutional. In his opinion, the courts should look into the pith of the
law by the 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.
Therefore, the court by 4:1 majority held sections 4 & 55 of the 42nd Constitutional (Amendment) Act,
1976 unconstitutional.

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 that 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 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 is
necessary to satisfy their political greed. This amendment even gave the power to parliament to
rewrite the 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 of this power. The argument 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 the Judiciary.
The Parliament was contending that since Part IV provisions are also basic structure, therefore,
the achievement of such provisions cannot be termed as a 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 of 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 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 a unanimous vote in both houses strip this right because Judicial
Review is the basic structure of the Constitution. Relying on the analogy of Justice Hegde &
Mukherjee the court said that some features are basic while others 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.
Overemphasis on one part will be an injustice to another part. There can be the 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 a basic feature of the 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 the 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 the 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 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 an amendment that restricts the challenge of
amendments in the courts of law and which removes all restrictions on the power of parliament are void
and violative of the Basic Structure of the constitution. The court held that Judicial Review is something
that they cannot take away even 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 the 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 the 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. The court relied on the description of Basic Structure by Hegde
&Mukherjee. that only circumstantial features can be changed and basic features cannot be changed.