Minerva Mills: Safeguarding the Constitution's Basic Structure

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India .

Citation: (1981) 1 SCR 206. [PDF]

Introduction

The Minerva Mills case is a significant landmark in Indian constitutional law. The case challenged the amendments made to Article 31C and Article 368 of the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The core issue revolved around the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and the extent of Parliament’s amending power.

The Supreme Court's ruling in this case reaffirmed the 'basic structure doctrine', established in the Kesavananda Bharati case. This doctrine limits the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Parliament cannot alter the fundamental features of the Constitution.

This case also examined the relationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV). The Court clarified that neither can be given absolute precedence over the other and that they must be harmonized.

Case Summary

  1. Minerva Mills Ltd., a textile company, was nationalized by the Central Government under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of this Act and related amendments.
  2. The petitioners specifically contested the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which introduced changes to Article 31C and Article 368. These amendments sought to give primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights and remove limits on Parliament's amending power.
  3. The case addressed whether these amendments damaged the basic structure of the Constitution, a principle established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
  4. The Court examined whether the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 could be curtailed in favour of Directive Principles under the amended Article 31C.
  5. The Court also considered the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, particularly clauses (4) and (5) introduced by the 42nd Amendment.
  6. The Court's judgment scrutinized the inclusion of the Nationalisation Act in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution through the 39th Amendment Act, and the validity of Article 31B.
  7. The Supreme court declared Section 4 and Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act unconstitutional and void for damaging the basic structure of the constitution.
  8. The Court observed that some of the statutes included in the 9th Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati case may violate the basic structure doctrine and their validity would have to be decided on a case to case basis.

Study guide

  1. Understand the 'basic structure' doctrine and its significance in limiting Parliament’s amending powers. The doctrine holds that the Parliament can amend the Constitution, but cannot alter its fundamental features or core principles.
  2. Examine the changes made to Article 31C by the 42nd Amendment, and how these changes attempted to give precedence to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19. The amendment sought to protect laws made to implement Directive Principles from being challenged for violating Articles 14 and 19.
  3. Analyze the role of judicial review in India's constitutional system, particularly how it acts as a check on the powers of the executive and legislature. The judiciary has the power to determine if governmental actions adhere to constitutional limits.
  4. Explore the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as explained in the judgment. Both are equally important and should be harmonized. Neither should be treated as superior to the other.
  5. Study the interpretation of Article 368 and the Court's ruling that Parliament's amending powers are not unlimited. Clause (5) of Article 368 was deemed unconstitutional.
  6. Learn how the Court viewed the concept of 'reading down' and why it was not applicable to Article 31C. The Court found that ‘reading down’ was inappropriate because it would require altering the clear intent of the amendment.
  7. Understand the significance of the Kesavananda Bharati case as a precedent for the Minerva Mills case. Kesavananda Bharati case established the basic structure doctrine.
  8. Consider the Court's stance on stare decisis (adherence to precedent) and how it was applied in the context of upholding Article 31A and Article 31B. The court recognized the need for certainty and continuity in the law but also the power to review past judgements.
  9. Study the specific findings on the 42nd Amendment and the Nationalization Act. The Court clarified that amended Article 31C was not relevant to deciding the validity of the Nationalization Act.
  10. Understand how a law qualifies for protection under the amended Article 31C. There must be a real and substantial connection between the law and a Directive Principle.

Rationale

  1. The Court reaffirmed that the Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is limited and cannot be used to alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The Parliament is not supreme but derives its powers from the Constitution itself.
  2. The Court held that the 42nd Amendment, particularly sections 4 and 55 which amended Article 31C and Article 368, were unconstitutional and void because they damaged the basic structure of the Constitution. These amendments attempted to remove limitations on Parliament's amending power and grant primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights.
  3. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial review as a mechanism to ensure that all organs of the state function within the limits of the constitution. It is the duty of the judiciary to keep the other organs of the state within their constitutional limits.
  4. The Court clarified that while the Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country, they cannot be given precedence over Fundamental Rights in a way that destroys the latter. Both are equally important and must be harmonized.
  5. The Court rejected the argument that Fundamental Rights are merely negative obligations and Directive Principles are positive obligations. It stated that some fundamental rights also have positive content.
  6. The Court also clarified the interpretation of amended Article 31C, stating that the protection under it is limited to only those provisions of a law that are essentially necessary for giving effect to a Directive Principle. The court should determine if there is a real and substantial connection between the law and a Directive Principle.

FAQ

Q.1. What was the central issue in the Minerva Mills case?

Answer: The central issue was whether the amendments to Article 31C and Article 368 of the Constitution, made by the 42nd Amendment Act, were constitutionally valid. The amendments attempted to give primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights and remove limitations on Parliament’s amending power.

Q.2. What is the significance of the 'basic structure' doctrine in this case?

Answer: The 'basic structure' doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, was central to the Minerva Mills case. It stipulates that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited. It cannot alter the Constitution’s basic or essential features.

Q.3. How did the 42nd Amendment try to change the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles?

Answer: The 42nd Amendment sought to give Directive Principles precedence over Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19. It aimed to protect laws implementing Directive Principles from being challenged for violating Articles 14 and 19.

Q.4. What did the Court decide about the amendments made to Article 31C?

Answer: The Court struck down the amendments to Article 31C, particularly the one that sought to extend protection against challenges under Articles 14 and 19 to all Directive Principles. It stated giving all Directive Principles precedence over Fundamental Rights would destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

Q.5. What was the Court's view on the amending powers of the Parliament under Article 368?

Answer: The Court affirmed that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is limited. Parliament is not supreme, but derives its powers from the Constitution. It cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution through amendments.

Q.6. How did the Court interpret the principle of 'reading down' in the Minerva Mills case?

Answer: The Court did not use the principle of ‘reading down’ in this case. The Court found that it was not appropriate in this context, because it would require altering the clear intent of the amendment, which was to give broad, unlimited precedence to all Directive Principles.

Q.7. What is the role of judicial review in the Indian Constitution as highlighted in the judgment?

Answer: The Court emphasized that judicial review is a vital part of the Indian constitutional framework. It acts as a guardian of the Constitution and ensures that all organs of the State operate within the limits of their constitutional powers.

Q.8. How did the principle of stare decisis influence the Court's decision?

Answer: The principle of stare decisis (adherence to precedent) played a role in the Minerva Mills case. While acknowledging the Court’s power to review past judgments, the judges also emphasized the need for certainty and continuity in the law. Certain articles were upheld based on this principle.

Conclusion

The Minerva Mills case is a landmark decision that reinforced the basic structure doctrine and maintained the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. It established that Parliament's amending power is not unlimited and that the judiciary has the authority to review constitutional amendments. The case continues to be a crucial point of reference in Indian constitutional law.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more