Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors, vs Union of India & Ors.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 01 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
The Minerva Mills Ltd. case involves the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings Act, the Constitution, and the Nationalisation Act. The central issue is whether sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, transgress the limitations on the amending power of Parliament as laid down in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case. [Paragraph 1]
II. Kesavananda Bharati Case and the Basic Structure Doctrine
In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court held that although Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, this power cannot be exercised in a manner that damages the basic features or destroys the basic structure of the Constitution. [Paragraph 2]
The majority view, as summarized by nine judges, was that "Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution." [Paragraph 38]
Petitioners' Challenge
The petitioners in the Minerva Mills case challenge the constitutional validity of sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, based on the ratio of the majority judgment in Kesavananda Bharati. [Paragraph 2]
III. Conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
The case revolves around the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly in light of the amendment to Article 31C, which subordinates Fundamental Rights to laws passed to effectuate Directive Principles. [Paragraph 5]
IV. Significance of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
The passage emphasizes the significance of both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in the governance of the country. Fundamental Rights are considered essential for the proper functioning of a democracy, while Directive Principles aim to make the Indian masses free from poverty and destitution. [Paragraphs 32, 38] Amendment to Article 31C The amendment to Article 31C gives primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights in case of conflict between them. This amendment is being questioned for potentially undermining the basic structure of the Constitution. [Paragraph 38]
V. Interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
The court must examine each law to determine if it is enacted for the purpose of giving effect to Directive Principles. The State's obligation to secure the Directive Principles determines whether a law will be protected under Article 31C. The court must decide if there is a real and substantial connection between a law and a Directive Principle, and must only protect provisions of the law that are necessary for giving effect to the Directive Principles. Specific Directive Principles in Articles 39 to 51 limit which laws can be protected under the amended Article 31C. [Paragraph 38]
VI. Judicial Review and the Basic Structure Doctrine
The power of judicial review, as conferred on the judiciary by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, is a cardinal principle of the Indian Constitution. It gives the judiciary the task of upholding constitutional values and enforcing constitutional limitations. This power is an integral part of the constitutional system and cannot be taken away without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution. [Paragraph 38]
The validity of any law made by the Legislature must be liable to be called into question on the grounds laid down by the Constitution. The power to review any amendment made in the Constitution is also necessary to protect the basic structure of the Constitution. [Paragraph 38]
VII. Conclusion
The passage discusses the conflict between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution, particularly in light of the amendment to Article 31C. It argues that the amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, as it is within the power of the Parliament to amend Article 31C. However, the court must carefully examine each law to determine if it is enacted for the purpose of giving effect to Directive Principles and protect only those provisions that are necessary for this purpose. The power of judicial review is a cardinal principle of the Constitution and is necessary to uphold the basic structure doctrine.
RELATED Blog
0 comments