Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

The case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) is one of the most celebrated and consequential judgements in Indian constitutional law. It reaffirmed and strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine propounded in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), by striking down certain provisions of the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, which sought to give Parliament virtually unlimited power to amend the Constitution. The judgement preserved the delicate balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, and upheld the supremacy of the Constitution over parliamentary authority.

Background and Context

During the period of internal emergency (1975–1977) declared by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the government enacted the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, often referred to as the “Mini-Constitution” due to its sweeping changes. The amendment aimed to strengthen the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) and to curtail judicial review and the scope of Fundamental Rights.
The Forty-second Amendment introduced, among others:

• Section 4, which amended Article 31C, giving primacy to all Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
• Section 55, which amended Article 368, declaring that no constitutional amendment could be questioned in any court on any ground and that Parliament’s amending power had no limitation.

These changes effectively placed Parliament’s amending power above the Constitution and rendered the judiciary powerless to review constitutional amendments.
The Minerva Mills, a textile company based in Karnataka, was taken over by the Central Government under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. The company challenged this action and subsequently also contested the constitutional validity of the Forty-second Amendment, arguing that it destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

The case required judicial interpretation of the following key provisions:

• Article 14 – Right to Equality.
• Article 19(1)(a)–(g) – Freedoms relating to speech, association, and profession.
• Article 31C – Protection of laws implementing Directive Principles.
• Article 368 – Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
• Directive Principles (Articles 38, 39, 39A, 41, 42, 43) – Relating to social and economic justice.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court was asked to decide the following major constitutional questions:

1. Whether Sections 4 and 55 of the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, are constitutional.
2. Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is unlimited or subject to judicial scrutiny.
3. Whether giving absolute primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
4. Whether judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments (Minerva Mills Ltd. and others):

• The Forty-second Amendment destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution by granting Parliament unlimited amending power.
• The primacy given to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights under the amended Article 31C violated the essential harmony between Parts III and IV.
• The provisions of Sections 4 and 55 were unconstitutional as they abrogated Fundamental Rights and excluded judicial review.
• The Basic Structure Doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) restricted Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India):

• Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is unlimited under Article 368, and such power includes amending or repealing Fundamental Rights.
• The purpose of the amendment was to give effect to Directive Principles, which aim to achieve social and economic justice, a core goal of the Constitution.
• Judicial review of constitutional amendments undermines parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of democratic majority.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, by a majority of 4:1, struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, as unconstitutional. The judgement was delivered by a five-judge Bench consisting of Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, and Justices A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.S. Kailasam, and A.N. Sen.
The Court held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution is not unlimited and that the Constitution’s basic structure cannot be destroyed by any amendment.

Key Findings of the Judgement

1. Limitation on Parliament’s Amending Power:The Court reaffirmed that Article 368 does not confer unlimited power on Parliament. Parliament cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. Striking Down of Section 55:The provision that declared Parliament’s amending power to be unlimited and beyond judicial review was held to be unconstitutional.The Court ruled that the judiciary has the power to review constitutional amendments to ensure they do not violate the basic structure.
3. Striking Down of Section 4 (Amended Article 31C):The extension of Article 31C to all Directive Principles (beyond Articles 39(b) and 39(c)) was invalidated.The Court held that giving absolute primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights destroys the harmony and balance between Parts III and IV of the Constitution.
4. Basic Structure Reaffirmed:The Court reiterated that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.It stated that neither part can be given absolute supremacy over the other.
5. Judicial Review as a Basic Feature:The Court affirmed that judicial review is an essential element of the basic structure and that Parliament cannot curtail the power of the judiciary to examine constitutional amendments.
6. Limited Amending Power:The Court emphasised that limited amending power itself is part of the basic structure.Therefore, Parliament cannot enlarge its own amending power to make it unlimited.

Justice Y.V. Chandrachud’s Observations

Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, writing for the majority, made several profound remarks that have become cornerstones of Indian constitutional thought:

• “The Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution.”
• “The power of amendment is a derivative power; it cannot be greater than the Constitution itself.”
• “If the Constitution is destroyed by Parliament’s act, then the Constitution ceases to exist — and so does Parliament.”

He concluded that the Constitution is supreme, not Parliament, and the judiciary is the guardian of that supremacy.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice P.N. Bhagwati, the sole dissenter, agreed that harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was essential but did not support the striking down of Sections 4 and 55. He argued that the court should adopt a more pragmatic approach to ensure social justice and fulfil the Directive Principles.

Significance of the Judgement

The Minerva Mills case is one of the most important in India’s constitutional evolution, as it reinforced and clarified the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Key outcomes include:

• Reaffirmation of the Basic Structure Doctrine: The decision confirmed that the Basic Structure Doctrine propounded in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) is valid and binding.
• Balance Between Rights and Duties: It emphasised that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles must coexist in harmony to achieve the goals of justice and liberty.
• Judicial Supremacy Restored: The decision reinstated the judiciary’s power to review constitutional amendments, strengthening judicial independence.
• Curtailment of Authoritarianism: It marked a judicial response against the excesses of the Emergency period and reasserted constitutional checks on political power.
• Preservation of Constitutional Democracy: By striking down the provisions that sought to make Parliament supreme, the Court preserved the democratic and federal character of the Constitution.

Aftermath and Influence

The Minerva Mills decision had far-reaching implications for Indian constitutional law and governance:

• It became the foundation for later cases, such as Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), which further elaborated the scope of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• It solidified the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution.
• The judgement also marked a shift towards constitutional liberalism, ensuring that the pursuit of socio-economic reforms would not override individual freedoms and democratic principles.

Conclusion

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) stands as a monumental reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy and judicial independence in India. By declaring that Parliament’s amending power is limited and subject to the Constitution’s basic structure, the Supreme Court safeguarded the integrity of India’s democratic framework. The case restored the equilibrium between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, ensuring that neither liberty nor social justice would prevail at the cost of the other. It remains a cornerstone in the continuing effort to preserve the Constitution as a living, balanced, and just document for the nation.