INTRODUCTION

Fundamental Rights are a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution,

guaranteeing liberty and equality for citizens. Unlike the Directive Principles
of State Policy (DPSPs), which guide governance, Fundamental Rights are
enforceable by the courts, making them crucial for protecting individuals
from the misuse of power.
The Constitution operates on the principle of separation of powers among
the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. To maintain a functional
democracy, a balance between these organs is essential. Historically, the
Legislature and Executive have attempted to expand their power,
sometimes at the expense of judicial authority or individual rights.

Reaffirmation in minerva mills case

This principle was strongly reaffirmed in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India
(1980) case.
The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the 42nd Constitutional
Amendment that sought to give Directive Principles absolute primacy over
Fundamental Rights. The Court underscored that both Fundamental Rights
and DPSPs are vital and must coexist in harmony. It held that Parliament,
despite its power, cannot amend the Constitution in a way that damages its
basic structure. This case solidified the judiciary's role as the guardian of
the Constitution and ensured that the core principles of the Indian republic
remain intact.

Fact of the case

The case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) arose from a series of events involving
the Indian government's attempt to assert its power and a company's fight to protect its
fundamental rights:

The Takeover of Minerva Mills

In 1970, the Indian government appointed a committee to investigate a significant drop in

production at Minerva Mills, a textile company. Based on the committee's report, the
government decided to take over the management of the mill. This was done under the
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and the management was handed over to
the National Textile Corporation. This action was challenged by the mill's owners, who argued
that their fundamental rights were being violated.

The Constitutional Amendments

The case escalated against a backdrop of significant constitutional changes. The government,
fresh off a major political setback in the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, sought to
consolidate its power. To do this, it passed the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, also known as the
"Mini-Constitution." This amendment made two crucial changes:
* Amended Article 31C: This change expanded the scope of laws that were immune from
judicial review. Previously, only laws implementing Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
under Article 39(b) and 39(c) could override fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19,
and 31. The 42nd Amendment broadened this to include all DPSP, effectively giving the
government a free pass to make laws that could violate fundamental rights as long as they were
declared to be for the greater public good.
* Amended Article 368: This change declared that there was no limitation on the Parliament's
power to amend the Constitution. It effectively removed the "basic structure" doctrine, which had
been established in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). This
doctrine held that Parliament could not amend the Constitution in a way that destroyed its
fundamental features.
In essence, the 42nd Amendment tried to make a law passed to implement a DPSP immune
from any court challenge and also tried to give Parliament unlimited power to amend the

⚖️
Constitution, effectively challenging the very foundation of the "basic structure" doctrine.
The Legal Challenge and Outcome
The Minerva Mills case challenged the constitutional validity of these amendments. The
Supreme Court of India had to decide whether Parliament's power to amend the Constitution
was absolute.

In its landmark judgment, the Supreme Court struck down key sections of the 42nd Amendment.
The court reaffirmed the "basic structure" doctrine, stating that Parliament's power to amend the
Constitution is not unlimited. It held that a law implementing DPSP cannot be immune from
judicial review if it violates fundamental rights. The court declared that the right to judicial review
and the balance between fundamental rights and DPSP are part of the basic structure of the
Constitution.
The Minerva Mills case is a pivotal moment in Indian legal history. It protected the "basic
structure" doctrine, ensuring that the Constitution's core principles—like judicial review and
fundamental rights—cannot be destroyed by a parliamentary amendment.

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.
This amendment meant that no laws that gave effect to the directive principle could be struck
down by a court on the basis that it violated the right to freedom of speech or right to equality.

Amended Article 368 of the Indian Constitution there was an insertion of clauses
(4) and (5) 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.
The amendment made in Article 368 would nullify the effect of the Kesavananda Bharati
Judgment.

The issue before the Supreme Court

• Whether insertion made under Article 31C and Article 368 through sections 4 and 55 of the
42nd Amendment Act, 1976 does hamper the basic structure doctrine?
• Whether the Directive Principle of the State policy has primacy over Fundamental right to the
Indian Constitution?

The petitioners challenged

• They challenged the validity of Sections

5(b), 19(3) 21, 25, and 27 (read with 2nd Schedule of the Nationalization Act, 1974.
• Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment
Act, 1976.

• Order of the Central Government to nationalize Minerva Mills.

• The primacy of the Directive Principle of the State Policy over the Fundamental Rights.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioners were represented by Nani Palkhivala he was the ambassador of the Janata
Government soon he felt the need to return to India to protect Human Rights so he argued the
case on the behalf of the previous owners of the Minerva Mills.

• The amendment powers of the parliament are limited under Article 368. This amendment
would allow parliament the creature of the Constitution to become its
master.

• The court decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case mentioned that the Parliament
has no authority to disturb the basic features of the Constitution.

• It was an obligation on the State to pass laws on the Directive Principle of the State policy but
it should be done through permissible means it cannot overrule the Fundamental Rights.

• Due to section 55 of the 42nd

Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 no court would have the power to review the constitutional
amendment passed by the Parliament this would damage the balance between the Judiciary
and the Parliament.

. There would be a disbalance that would be created between the Fundamental Rights and the
Directive Principles of the State Policy there is a need to create a harmonious construction.

• Almost every law enacted by the government would one or the other way be associated with
the Directive Principles.

• To give immunity to the Directive Principle would wipe out Article 19 and Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution.

Arguments of the Respondents

The State was represented by the attorney general L.N. Sinha and additional solicitor general
K.K. Venugopal they both were in a precarious position to defend the amendment passed the
emergency era:
• Article 31C of the Indian Constitution reinforced the basic structure doctrine, Directive
Principles provided goals in absence of Fundamental Rights.

• Any harm that is caused to the Fundamental Rights won't amount to the violation of the basic
structure doctrine.

• To achieve the goals framed under the Directive Principle of the State Policy powers of the
Parliament should be supreme there should be no restrictions on its amendment powers.

• The issue related to academic interest should not be decided by the Court.

• The government through the naturalization process was assisting the company to raise loans.

Judgment

After almost 7 years from the passage of the order passed by the Central Government to
conduct the investigation. The decision was pronounced by a five judge bench of the Supreme
Court with the majority of 4:1

Majority Opinion

The majority opinion was given by Justice Chandrachud on the behalf of Justice A.C.
Gupta, N.L. Untwalia and P.S. Kailasam.

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution

• The parliament has the power to amend the Constitution but should be within its basic
framework.

• The theory of unlimited power to amend the Constitution would alienate democracy and create
a totalitarian State.

• The clause (5) is unconstitutional because it hampers the basic structure of the Constitution.

• The clause (50 was struck down as because it restricted the court's power of judicial review on
and amendment.
Article 31C of the Indian Constitution

• If part IV subverts Part III of the Indian Constitution it would destroy the basic
structure.

• If part IV needs to be achieved without the abrogation of Part II of the Constitution.

• The most elementary freedoms provided under Article 19 and 14 of the Indian Constitution
therefore they should be preserved.

• Article 31 C of the Indian Constitution has removed two sides of the golden triangles(Article 19,
14, and 21) which will cause serious harm to the people of this country.

Minority opinion

The dissenting opinion was given by Justice Bhagwati.

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution

Justice Bhagawati was in favor of the majority decision in striking down section 55 of the 42nd
Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976:

• He opined that basic features are an integral part of the Constitution.

• The clause (4) is unconstitutional because it breached two basic features of the constitution
First Limited amending power of the Parliament. Second Restriction on judicial review.
• The clause (5) is unconstitutional and void it had an effect of transforming the constitution into
an uncontrolled one.

Article 31C of the Indian Constitution

• Article 31C of the Constitution didn't damage the basic structure but instead strengthened.

• Non-Compliance of the Directive Principle would be unconstitutional and breach of faith with
the people.

• No law directly giving effect to the Directive Principle can be inconsistent with the vegetarian
principle.

• If the law is substantially connected to the Directive Principle of the State Policy would be valid
if there is no nexus then it would
be struck down.

The decision of the Supreme Court

On 31st July 1980, the Court pronounced its Judgment:

• Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 is 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.

Judicial precedent

The evolution of this doctrine happened through various landmark judgments. Some of them are
as follows:

Golaknath case

• In this case, the court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended; there is a restriction
imposed on the parliament to amend fundamental rights; there is a need for a new constitutional
assembly.

• They used the concept of implied limitation on the power of the parliament to amend the
constitution.

Kesvananda Bharati case

• In this case, the Supreme Court first used the concept of the Basic Structure for the first time.

• The basic structure doctrine cannot be abrogated even through a Constitutional Amendment.

• The Supreme Court suggested a few basic structures like Free and fair elections, separation
Of Power, Parliamentary Form of government, etc.

Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain

• Through the 39th amendment, there was an insertion of a clause that Prime Minister, Vice
President, Spreaker is beyond the Scope of judicial review.
• The Court in this case, while pronouncing judgment on the basic structure doctrine held that bit
was beyond the Parliament amending power and therefore it was struck down.

Indira Sawhney Case

• In this case, the Supreme Court inserted various grounds for implementation of reservations
like the creamy layer, 50% restriction, etc.
• The rule of law was inserted in the basic structure doctrine.
• Unity and Integrity of the nation, Federal Structure, Secularism, and Socialism were inserted
by the court through this case.

R. Bommai Case

• The Supreme Court, through this case, inserted Preamble in the basic
structure doctrine because Preamble acts as a guiding lamp for the
legislature to interpret the Constitution.

Therefore basic structure doctrine has a significant place in the Indian

Constitution it limits the power of the Parliament to frame laws that are
inconsistent with the rights of the people.