Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789) 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 unanimously ruled that the power of the Parliament of India 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, including the right to liberty and equality.
The ruling struck down section 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act.
CASE
Minerva Mills Ltd. was a private textile company. In August 1970, the Government of India ordered an investigation of the company for low production under the Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951. On 19 October 1971, under section 18A of the 1951 Act, the government authorized the National Textile Corporation Ltd., to take over the management of Minerva Mills on the ground that its affairs were being managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest. The company was then nationalized under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974.
The petitioner, represented by Nani Palkhivala, challenged the constitutional validity of Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act. They also challenged the constitutionality of the 39th Amendment, the validity of Article 31B of the constitution and the constitutionality of sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment.
JUDGEMENT
In its ruling, 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:
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.
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).
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.