CASE ANALYSIS  :  MINERVA MILLS VS UNION OF INDIA (1980)  

This article is written by R.Manmitha, Keshav Memorial College of Law, 3^rd year BA.LLB during an internship at LeDroit India. 

KEYWORDS  

42^ND Amendment  

Basic Structure Doctrine 

Principles of state policy  

Amending power of parliament  

Rights of Liberty and Equality  

Limited Powers 

INTRODUCTION  

In the Minerva Mills Case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on interpretation of the Basic Structure Doctrine. The case is regarded as the landmark is a significant impact on legal history. The court ruled that the power of the parliament to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself an unlimited power. 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. In addition to that a majority of the court also held that the parliament’s power to amend is not a power to destroy. Hence the parliament cannot emasculate the fundamental rights of individuals and also includes the rights to liberty and equality (which is not a fundamental right but considered a basic structure). This example reinforces the basic structure idea once further. The 42^nd Amendment Act of 1976 made two amendments of the constitution, which the court declared to be in violation of the fundamental structure in this case. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

• The Sick Textiles Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974 was passed by parliament. It was established to fulfil a goal of wide public interest, namely, the reconstruction of the textile company’s poor assets and development of a feasible solutions. 

•  It’s goal was to ensure that goods were available at reasonable costs so that the general population would not be harmed. 

• Minerva mills is a textile mill located near the Bengaluru city.  

• The central government considering the substantial fall in the production of Minerva Mills appointed a committee under section 15 of the Industries Development Act, 1951 this was done in the year 1970.  

• The committee submitted its report to the central government in October 1971.  

• The central government authorized the National Textile Corporation limited which was a body formed under the Industrial Development Act, 1951 to take over the management of Minerva Mills. 

• In the 39^th Amendment, nationalization was included in the ninth schedule which was outside the purview of judicial review.  

• After a huge setback in Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narein to have supreme power, a 42^nd Amendment was passed in the parliament which amended Article 31C through section 4 of the Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 made Amendments in Article 368. 

Amended Article 31C read as:  

No law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing (all or any principles laid down in Part (IV) shall be deemed to void on the ground that it is inconsistent or abridges any right which is conferred under Article 14 or Article 19; no law containing the declaration that it giving effect to such policy shall be called in the question in the in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy.  

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.  

ISSUES OF THE CASE  

• Whether insertion made under Article 31C and Article 368 through sections 4 and 55 of the 42^nd 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 2^nd Schedule of the Nationalization Act, 1974.  

• Sections 4 and 55 of the 42^nd 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 42^nd 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 RESPONDENT 

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.    

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE  

After almost 7 years from the passage of the order passed by the Central Government to conduct the investigation. The decision was pronounced on 31^st of July 1980 by a five judge bench of the Supreme Court with the Majority of 4:1.  

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

• The writ petition challenging the validity of Sections 5(b), 19(3) 21, 25, and 27 (read with 2^nd schedule of the nationalization act, 1974 was dismissed by the court.  

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.  

CONCLUSION  

This 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 contradiction between the Fundamental rights and the Directive principles of state policy (DPSP) can be viewed as a confrontation between the person and the state. While parliament frequently attempted to impose the state’s and DPSP’s supremacy over Fundamental rights, the supreme court protected individual rights as enshrined in the constitution by issuing appropriate decision. As a result, it may be determined that the authority to alter granted to parliament a limited amount of power. The parliament cannot go beyond this power to change the constitution’s basic structure. The relevance of the Keshavananda Bharati Case  is Basic Structure Doctrine cannot be overstated. Any statute or amendment that attempts to go beyond or beyond that fundamental structural concept will be declared unlawful. The Court further stated that the authority of judicial review cannot be revoked