Case Commentary on Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors

Abstract

The Minerva Mills vs Union of India is a landmark decision in constitutional history because the supreme court stated that the amending power of the parliament is limited by evolving and re-affirming the basic structure doctrine. The verdict of the case makes clear that it is the  constitution which is  supreme; not the parliament. The balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution,” the Supreme Court of India decided in the Minerva Mills case. They are the foundation of the entire social reform effort. The Directive Principles can be implemented by changing the Fundamental Rights, as long as the modification does not jeopardise or destroy the Constitution’s core structure. This article helps you to understand this particular case.

Keywords

42nd amendment, basic structure doctrine, harmonious relation, Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental rights, Amending power of parliament.

Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors

Decided On   – 31 July, 1980

Decided By  – Supreme Court of India

Citation    – 1980 AIR 1789, 1981 SCR(1) 206

Author      –  CASE DECIDED BY Y.V.CHANDRACHUD

Bench      – FIVE JUDGE BENCH WITH 4:1 MAJORITY

Introduction

 The case of Minerva Mills vs. Union of India is regarded as a landmark case since it had a significant impact on legal history. This aided the judiciary’s view that “the core structure of the constitution cannot be amended,” as well as restoring the public’s faith in the judiciary. It also emphasised the necessity of judicial review and a balanced link between fundamental rights and state policy directive principles. This example reinforces the Basic Structure idea once further. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 made two amendments to the Constitution, which the court declared to be in violation of the fundamental structure in this case. The Supreme Court’s decision establishes that the Constitution, not the Parliament, is supreme. This article delves into the details of the case.

Background of the Case

The battle of authority between the government and the judiciary began with the Golak Nath case, in which an 11-judge panel ruled that the executive has limited jurisdiction to modify the constitution. The 24th Amendment, which gave parliament unfettered power to modify any aspect of the constitution, was passed to overturn this decision. This debate was somewhat resolved in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati decision, which concluded that the ability to change the Constitution is subject to the constitution’s core structure.

To overturn all of these judgements, the parliament passed the contentious 42nd constitutional amendment. Regardless of whether they violate Article 14, 19, or 21 of the Constitution, Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment preserves all actions done to enforce our Directive Principle of State policy from being ruled unconstitutional. In addition, Section 55 gives the parliament the power to amend the constitution. Both of these rules were called into doubt in the Minerva Mills vs Union of India case.

Facts of the Case

• Minerva Mills was a textile mill in Karnataka. It was largely involved in the large-scale commercial production of silk fabrics.
• At the time, the government was fully committed to its socialist agenda, and it was acquiring failing businesses for public use.
• Following a significant decline in production, the Central Government established a committee under section 15 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 to investigate the Company.
• The minerva mills were treated similarly, with the government declaring it a sick enterprise and seizing control.
• Due to mismanagement of the firm’s activities, which was highlighted by passing an order under the aforementioned provision, the National Textile Corporation Ltd. was required by Section 18A of the Industries Act to take over the management of the company.
• The company was taken over in accordance with the terms of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, as a result of this action.
• Following that, a challenge to the takeover was filed in the High Court, but the case was dismissed. The corporation was unable to challenge the judgement in court since section 4 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment exempts any actions taken to enforce the socialist programme from judicial review.
• As a result, the petitioner challenged the legitimacy of Sections 4 and 55 of the 1976 Constitutional Amendment in the Supreme Court of India, submitting a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

Issues

Is it true that the constitution’s directive principles of state policy (DPSP) take precedence over the fundamental rights outlined in Part III?

Whether the 42nd Constitutional Amendment’s Sections 4 and 55 contradict the constitution’s essential structure?

 Petitioner’s Contentions 

The petitioner, represented by Nani Palkhivala, argued the case on the behalf of the previous owners of the Minerva Mills.

1. Parliament’s ability to change the constitution is limited, and altering the constitution under Article 368 has its own set of constraints.
2. Article 368 only applies to amendments that do not modify our Constitution’s core foundation.
3. The achievement of DPSPs must not come at the expense of abuses of fundamental rights. To put it another way, the DPSP does not have the authority to override fundamental rights. The two components of the constitution must have a healthy connection, and if one is made stronger than the other, chaos will ensue.
4. The freedom to seek judicial redress is at the heart of democracy. Section 4 of the amendment limited this fundamental legal freedom, and as a result, our democracy will implode. As a result, they should be declared ineffective.
5. The notion of check and balance is critical to the proper functioning of democracy. It will result in anarchy if one branch of government becomes absolute.

Respondent’s Arguments 

The Learned Attorney General claimed that public-interest legislation did not undermine the Constitution’s essential foundation. The learned Attorney General argued that a law enacted in accordance with Article 38 of the Indian Constitution could not be said to have abrogated Fundamental Rights or destroyed the basic structure because the structure is based on justice, social, political, and economic principles, which Article 38 enumerates.

1. The DPSP is an important part of our country’s operation, and any unintended injury to fundamental rights as a result of achieving the DPSP’s goals is not a breach of the basic structure theory.
2. The law that implements the directive or fulfills the purpose of Article 38 is not considered a breach of fundamental freedom, and so does not violate the basic structure.
3. The 42nd Amendment does not make many substantial changes, as Article 368 allows the parliament free power to amend the constitution.The discussion concerning the hierarchy of provisions is essentially intellectual, and the courts should stay out of it.

Verdict of the Case

 According to the Supreme Court, the Parliament must not use its amending power to the extent where it abrogates the Indian Constitution or its core elements.

Section 55’s Constitutional Validity 

According to the ruling, this clause is null and void because it made any legal challenges impossible. Furthermore, it removes any constraints placed on parliament and grants it unfettered power. The main goal of enacting section 55, according to the court, is to invalidate the consequences of the Kesavananda Bharati case.

Simply put, the ability to modify the constitution will always be subject to our basic structural theory, which includes judicial review. As a result, Section 55 has been found unlawful.

Relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy

In this decision, the court clarified the true link between fundamental rights and the DPSP. Parts III and IV are the identity of our Indian Constitution, according to the court, and giving one priority over the other would jeopardise the Constitution’s essential foundation. There will never be a point of supremacy between these two notions since they will always have a healthy connection.

The provisions of Part IV should only be implemented if all fundamental rights have been respected. Any legislation or announcement enacting the DPSP that violates fundamental rights would be considered unconstitutional because it goes against our fundamental framework.

Validity of Section 4 of the Constitution 

In our constitutional system, every legislation or notification is balanced against our fundamental rights in order to examine or determine their constitutional legitimacy. However, under Section 4, Articles 14 and 19 are not considered while considering the legality of a law. As a result, the court found that it was a breach of our constitutional rights, and the decision was reversed.

Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment were struck down by a five-judge panel on the grounds that they violated the Constitution’s essential framework. The judges affirmed the basic structure concept and upheld the ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

Conclusion

The Minerva Mills case helped to establish a precedent for future constitutional cases. This case helped to prevent further abuses of fundamental rights in the future. In order to restore the Golden Triangle, the court’s decision in the Minerva Mills case was crucial. The importance of striking a balance between Parts III and IV, which cover Fundamental Rights and DPSP, respectively, was highlighted in this instance. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms the supremacy of the Constitution above Parliament.

In this case, the Court added two features to the list of basic structure features. Judicial review and the fundamental rights-DPSP balance were the two issues. The limited amending power of the Constitution was deemed a basic characteristic by the court.

This article has been contributed by Kaarkuzhali Ekambaram, a student at Dr Ambedkar Government Law College, Pudhupaakam.

References

1. https://legalstudymaterial.com/minerva-mills-vs-union-of-india-1980/
2. https://blog-ipleaders-in.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/blog.ipleaders.in/minerva-mills-vs-union-india-significant-case-india-forgotten/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&amp=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16552667408291&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.ipleaders.in%2Fminerva-mills-vs-union-india-significant-case-india-forgotten%2F
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/