Case summary: Minerva mills ltd v. union of India

 Case summary: Minerve mills ltd v. union of India

[AIR 1980 SC 368]

By swatee Shukla

In kesavanad Bharti v. State of Kerala, the supreme court overruled the Golak Nath case,

and it was unanimously held that the twenty-fourth amendment, which inserted clause (4)

in article 13 and clause (3) in article 368 was valid. All the judges agreed that under the

amended article 368 all provisions of the constitution including those enshrining

fundamental rights could be amended. However, the majority of 7:6 was of the view that

the provisions affecting the basic structure or framework of the constitution could not be

amended. The supreme court by a judicial innovation structured a “ basic Structure Docrie”

and gave to itself the power to review whether such an amendment would be ultra vires as

it violates the very structure of the constitution. (in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union Of India,

the supreme court said that when the fundamental rights are altered by a constitutional

amendment, if it is in conformity with the constitution’s basic structure, then such an

amendment is permissible.)

To negate kesavanand’s case ruling parliament passed the forty-second amendment

introducing two (draconian) provisions in article 368. These provisions were-

(1) No amendment of the constitution (including an amendment to fundamental rights)

could be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever(clause 3).

(2) There is no limitation whatsoever on the power of parliament to amend any part of the

constitution whether by way of addition, variation, or repeal (clause 2).

The Indira Gandhi government passed this amendment bill without any debate or

discussion and this was passed at a time when most of the opposition leaders were in jail.

This forty-second amendment was challenged in the supreme court in the case of Minerva

mills ltd. V. the union of India. Both the amendments were held void. The second clause

was void because it would give undefined and vast power to parliament to amend the

constitution to any extent whatsoever- even to the extent of distorting it out of recognition.

For the second clause supreme court observed that the constitution of India is founded on a

judicious balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judiciary. Thus, it is not

only the function but also the duty of the judiciary to pronounce on the validity of laws

passed by the legislature. For the second clause supreme court observed that the

constitution of India is founded on a judicious balance of power between the executive,

legislative, and judiciary. Thus, it is not only the function but also the duty of the judiciary to

pronounce on the validity of laws passed by the legislature.

The majority judgment observed that fundamental rights occupy a unique place in the lives

of civilized socities and they constitute the ark of the constitution. Therefore, to destroy

these constitutional guarantees to achieve the goals of any directive principle of state policy

amounts to subverting the Constitution by destroying its basic structure.

Justice Bhagwati, on the other hand, took the view that this amendment, far from

damaging the basic structure of the constitution, would strengthen and enforce it.