Minerva Mills v. Union of India

Author: Aditi Saboo

College: University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CASE NO.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 356 OF 1977
APPELANT: MINERVA MILLS LTD. AND ITS SHAREHOLDERS
RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA
CITATION: AIR 1980 SC 1789
JUDGES: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD (CHIEF JUSTICE), P.N. BHAGWATI, A.C. GUPTA, N.L. UNTWALIA, P.S. KAILASAM.

INTRODUCTION
The case of Minerva mills vs. Union of India is the finest case which talks about the advantages of the checks and balances system. It is the most important judgement which guarded the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution from being amended by the parliament. The constitutionality of section 4 and 55 of the 42nd amendment act, 1986 gave the parliament unlimited power to amend the constitution and hence, were struck down by the honourable Supreme Court.

FACTS
Minerva mills ltd. (petitioner no. 1) is a silk industry in the state of Karnataka. Other petitioners are shareholders.
The central government was in suspicion that the company is facing a substantial fall in the volume of production. So, they appointed a committee under section 15 of the Industries Act, 1951 to investigate the matter in depth.
Then the committee submitted its reports in January 1971 to the central government. Then the central government passed an order on October 1971 u/s 18A of the act,1951 that authorises National Textile Corporation Ltd. to manage the affairs of the mill on the ground of mismanagement of the mill.
Thereafter, the petitioner challenged this order before the High Court. However, they dismissed it. Then the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, 1950 before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES
1. Whether sections 4 and 55 (4), (5) of 42nd amendment act,1976 are beyond the amending power of Parliament under Article 368.
2. Whether the Directive Principle of State Policy can have primacy over Fundamental Rights.

JUDGEMENT
The judgement was delivered on July 31, 1980. It was divided in the ratio of 4:1. In which, Justice P.N. Bhagwati was not in favour of the judgement. Judges struck down section 4 and 55 of the 42nd amendment act,1976 as it was in violated of basic structure doctrine of the constitution. The court held that section 55 is unconstitutional and violated the basic structure. Clause 5 of Article 368 removed all the limitations on amending the power of the parliament and clause 4 deprived the court to review any amendment made to our constitution.
Hence, clause 4 denies the rights of Article 32 of the constitution given to citizens. And if the powers of judicial review are taken from the courts then the constitution will become uncontrollable.
The court also held that section 4 of the 42nd amendment act tried to separate article 14 and 19 from Article 31C, so this was held void as it destroys basic feature.
The court also explained the connection between the provisions of Part III and IV of this constitution. The court said that DPSP are the basis of our country in governing it and Fundamental rights have taken important places in the lives of citizens. The court also said that the entire constitution depends on the substructure DPSP and FRs and if primacy is given to one over another will shake the foundation of the constitution. Making a balance between both will only serve justice and not by giving primacy over another. The provisions of Part IV must be achieved without abrogating the provisions of Part III. Therefore, the court laid down that the balance between DPSP and FRs is the basic structure of the constitution.

ANALYSIS

The judgment unanimously struck down 42nd Amendment to the extent of striking down Section 55 of the Amendment Act 1976. Through the 42nd amendment, Parliament tried to imbalance the relationship between Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principle of State Policy. But the majority of judges opined that if Directive Principles precede over the Fundamental rights in the name of welfare then the judgements and amendment made will be discriminatory to the liberty of an individual. Section 55 of the 42nd amendment act that provides unlimited power to amend the constitution was struck down by the majority as it tried to create an imbalance among the three organs of democracy and this amendment would give more power to the parliament which would result in no scope of judicial review with the courts.