Case details
Case Name- Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Court- Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment- 31 July 1980
Bench- Constitution Bench of 5 Judges
Judges- Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.; P.N. Bhagwati, J.; A.C. Gupta, J.; N.L. Untwalia, J.; P.S. Kailasam, J.
Citation- AIR 1980 SC 1789 and (1980) 3 SCC 625
Introduction
Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India is one of the landmark judgement in the history of Indian Judiciary. This judgement reinforced the doctrine of Basic Structure in the Indian Constitution. It was a case during Emergency and involved validity of certain provisions regarding the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. The central question of this case was whether Parliament posses unlimited power to amend Constitution under Article 368. It examined whether Court could amend the Constitution in a manner that effectively removed limitations on it own amending power.
This case involved relationship between Fundamental Rights in Part III and Directive Principle of State Policy in Part IV of the Indian Constitution. It emphasised that Fundamental Rights and DPSP are harmoniously balanced, rather than one being completely subordinate to the other.
Facts of the Case
Minerva Mills Ltd. was a textile company based in Karnataka. The Government believed that there had been, or likely to be, substantial fail in the volume of production. Hence, the Central Government appointment a committee under Section 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 on 20 August 1970 to investigate the affairs of the company as the company was managed under this Act. The committee submitted its report in January 1971. The government stated that affairs of the company were being managed in a manner detrimental to public interest. Therefore, on 19 October 1971, the Central Government passed an order under Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Through this order, the management of Minerva Mills was taken over by the National Textile Corporation Ltd.
Under the 39th Amendment Act, nationalisation was made a part of 9th Schedule. Hence, it was outside the purview of Judicial Review. After the huge setback in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain to have supreme power a 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 was passed in the Parliament which amended Article 31C through Section 4 of Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. Further, section 55 of 42nd Amendment Act made amendments in Article 368.
Amended Article 31C read as:
No law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing (all or any principles laid down in Part (IV) shall be deemed to void on the ground that it is inconsistent or abridges any right which is conferred under Article 14 or Article 19; no law containing the declaration that it giving effect to such policy shall be called in the question in the in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy.
Proviso: that where such laws are made by the legislature of a State, the provisions of these Articles shall not apply thereto unless such law, having time being reserved for the consideration of the president has received his assent.
In Article 368 clause (4) and (5) was added which is read as:
(4) No amendment of this Constitution including the provisions of part III made or purporting have been made under this article whether before or after Section 55 of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground.
(5) For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of parliament to amend by addition variation or repeal the provision of the Constitution under this article.
Issue before the court
- Whether amendment to Article 31C giving primacy to Directive Principles of State Policy over Fundamental Rights was constitutionally valid?
- Whether amendments made under Article 31C and Article 368 of the Indian Constitution hamper the basic structure doctrine ?
Argument of petitioner
The petitioners challenge:
- The primacy of DPSP over Fundamental Rights
- Order of Central Government to nationalize Minerva Mills and validity of Section 5(b), 19(3), 21, 25, 27 of the Nationalisation Act.
- Section 4 and 5 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
The main arguments put forth were:
Article 368 gives power to amend the Constitution but it doesn’t give power to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati limits Parliament’s amending power.
Section 55 of 42nd Amendment Act gave unlimited power to the Parliament because of which no court could review the Constitutional Amendment passed by Parliament. Constitutional amendment must be subject to judicial review.
Amendment in Article 31C extended protection to laws implementing all DPSPs which could allow ordinary legislation to override Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and 19. According to petitioner this destroyed the balance between Part III and Part IV.
Arguments of respondents
Parliament has broad constiuent power. It can amend the Constitution under Article 368.
The Directive Principles are the goals of a State and aims at achieving social and economic justice. Hence, greater importance could legitimately be given to Part IV.
The State needs sufficient legislative freedom to implement welfare and economic policies. Excessive judical intervention can obstruct social transformation.
The government through nationalisation process was assisting the company to raise loans.
Judgement
The decision was pronounced on 31 July 1980 by a five judge bench of the Supreme Court with a 4:1 majority. Section 4 and 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 was held unconstitutional. The writ petition challenging the validity of Sections 5(b), 19(3) 21, 25, and 27 (read with 2nd schedule of the nationalization act, 1974 was dismissed by the court.
Reasoning of the court
The Court reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine. It stated that the Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure. It reasonsed that if Parliament could limit the limitation of amending power it can destroy the Constitution’s identity. Clause (4) and (5) of Article 368 were held to be unconstitutional as they hampered the basic structure of the Constitution and restricted court’s power to judicial review on Amendment respectively.
The Constitution is founded on the bed rock of the balance between Part III and Part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the another is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution which is the essential feature of the basic structure. The goals set out in Part IV have to be achieved without abrogation of the means provided by Part III. Hence the umamended Article 31C was restored.
Significance of the case
The Minerva Mills case reinforced the basic structure doctrine as established in Kesavananda Bharati. It made it clear that the doctrine wasn’t merely theoretical. It laid down that the limited nature of Parliament’s amending power is itself part of basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment also reaffirmed that judical review is an essential feature of the Constitution. The idea that Directive Principle of State Policy could simply be placed above Fundamental Rights in an absolute manner was rejected. Hence, the importance of harmony between Part III and Part IV was emphasized.
The Supreme Court made it clear that the Parliament has no inherent power to amend. Its amending power is one conferred by the Constitution and that power is limited. Parliament is a create of the Constitution and it can only have powers as are given to it under the Constitution. The principle that “The Constitution is suprema lex, the paramount law of land” was reinforced.
Conclusion
This case reaffirmed that the Constitution doesn’t merely confer authority upon the State but also determines the boundary within which the authority must operate. By invalidating Parliament’s power to amend the basic structure the court preserved the character of the Constitution as a controlled and limited Constitutional order. Few months after the judgment, in the case of Waman Rao v. Union of India the validity of umamended Article 31C was reaffirmed.
The significance of Minerva Mills lies in the insistence that the Constitution must remain capable of adopting to changing circumstances without losing its core identify and principles.
Reference
Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain
I.C. Golaknath Vs State of Punjab
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala
Waman Rao v. Union of India
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19, 31C and 368.
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
39th Constitutional Amendment Act
The Nationalization Act, 1974
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951
