MINERVA MILLS LTD VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd Vs Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789) declared that Section 4 and 55 of the Constitution ( Forty Second Amendment ) Act , 1976 are void and beyond amending power of the Parliament.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Central Government appointed a committee under Section 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951) for complete investigation of affairs of Minerva Mills as it was of opinion that there may be substantial fall in production. On the basis of report the said committee the Central Government authorized National Textile Corporation to take over management of Minerva Mills on the ground that its management is highly detrimental to national interest.

Various provisions were challenged in this batch of Petitions but Court determined Section 4 and Section 55 of 42^nd Amendment Act. Section 4 amended Article 31 C to the effect that no law giving effect to the policy of the state towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy ) will be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with Article 14, 19 and 21. Section 55 amended Article 368 and inserted clause (4) and (5) therein. Clause 4 provided that no amendment to the Constitution under Article 368 will be challenged before any Court.  Clause  5 provided that there will be no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament to amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation, or repeal.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court observed that Constitution has conferred limited amending power to Parliament. Parliament can not enlarge limited power into absolute power. Parliament cannot under Article 368 repeal or abrogate the Constitution or destroy its basic and essential features. The Supreme Court declared clause (5) ultra vires and void on this ground. Clause (4) was also declared void as it deprived courts power of judicial review of constitutional amendments even in cases of infraction of basic structure of Constitution. Without this power fundamental rights conferred on people will become mere adornment because rights without remedies are writs in water.

As far as amendment to   Article 31 C is concerned the same relate to primacy of Directive Principle of State Policy over Fundamental Rights. Fundamental Rights have unique place in lives of civilized societies and have been described as transcendental, inalienable and primordial.  Indian Constitution is based on bed-rock of balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. To give absolute primacy to one over the another is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that harmony and balance between  Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.  The amendment to Article 31 C leads to startling consequence that even if a law is in violation of Article 13 read with Article 14 and 19, its validity will not be open to question so long its objective is to secure ends of Directive Principles of State Policy. The Supreme  Court observed that only three Articles i.e. Article 14, 19 and 21 stand between heaven of freedom and the abyss of unrestrained power. Amendment of Article 31 C  has removed two Articles of this golden triangle. The Supreme Court declared amendment to 31C vide 42nd amendment also ultra vires and void.

Justice P. N. Bhagwati wrote a separate judgment wherein he also declared amendment to Article 368 as void on the ground that it violates basic structure of the Constitution. But he upheld the constitutional validity of amendment of Article 31 C as in his opinion it did not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

_____________________________________________