Author: Divisha Mishra, ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, ICFAI University, Dehradun
Abstract
The landmark case of Minerva mills vs. UOI (1980) stands as a monumental decision in Indian Constitutional history. It not only reaffirmed the basic structure Doctrine but also struck a balance between Fundamental Rights (part iii) and Directive principles of State Policy(part iv). The supreme court’s decision fortified the concept that the constitution is supreme, and its core principles cannot be compromised. This judgment highlighted the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the constitution and the rule of law, ensuring that no branch of government could overreach its authority.
Background: Minerva Mills, a textile company in Bangalore, was nationalized under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. The owners of Minerva Mills challenged the nationalization, arguing that their fundamental rights under Article14 (right to equality) and Article 19 (right to freedom) were violated. This challenge coincided with a broader debate on Constitutional amendments introduced by the 42nd Amendment, 1976, which sought to enhance the authority of Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights and limit judicial review of constitutional amendments.
The key constitutional questions revolved around:
The limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
Whether the 42nd Amendment violated the constitution’s basic structure.
The balance between fundamental rights and directive principles.
The Constitutional Provisions In Question.
Article 31C ( post- 42nd Amendment)
This Article allowed laws made to implement Directive Principles (Articles 39(b) and (c)) to override Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19.
Articles 368(4) and 368(5)
Introduced by the 42nd Amendment, these clauses barred judicial review of constitutional amendments and declared Parliament’s amending power unlimited.
Key Issues Before The Court: The Supreme Court deliberated on the following constitutional issues:
Validity of Article 31c Post-42nd amendment :
Could laws enacted to implement directive principles under Articles 39(b) and (c) override fundamental rights such as Articles 14 (equality before the law) and Article 19( freedom of speech, trade, and movement?)
Curtailment of Judicial Review:
Were Articles 368(4) and 368(5), introduced by the 42nd amendment, valid? Did they unconstitutionally bar judicial review of constitutional amendment, undermining the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the constitution?
Doctrine of Basic Structure:
Was the 42nd Amendment valid under the Doctrine of the basic structure, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution? Did the amendment distort the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles, violating the constitution’s fundamental framework?
Overriding power of Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights:
Could directive principles, which are non- justiciable in nature, take precedence over fundamental rights, which are enforceable in a court of law?
Parliament’s power under Article 368:
Does Article 368 confer unlimited power on Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including provisions relating to the basic structure?
Judgment and Rationale: the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, declared Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional for violating the basic structure of the constitution of India. Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, writing for the majority, addressed the following:
Judicial review as an Essential Feature
Judicial review is crucial to the Constitution’s basic structure. Articles 368(4) and 368(5), which barred judicial review of constitutional amendments, were struck down. The Court noted that without judicial review, democracy would be reduced to a façade, as there would be no mechanism to check the potential misuse of legislative power.
Precedence of Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles
Article 31c, as amended by the 42nd Amendment, was declared unconstitutional to the extent that it gave precedence to directive principles over Articles 14 and 19. The court acknowledged that while directive principles are essential for achieving socio-economic justice, they cannot completely override fundamental rights, which form the bedrock of individual liberty and equality.
Doctrine of Limited Amending Power
Referring to Keshavananda Bharati, the court reiterated that parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited. It cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its fundamental framework or basic structure, such as by extinguishing judicial review or altering the harmonious balance between Parts III and IV.
Living Constitution
The judgement underscored the idea of a “living Constitution”, which evolves with time but retains its core principles. The court asserted that preserving the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is critical for ensuring that the Constitution remains relevant and effective.
Justice P.N. Bhagwati dissented, favoring the supremacy of directive principles over fundamental rights. He argued that directive principles are tools to achieve socio-economic justice, which is crucial for transforming Indian society. However, his debate did not prevail.
Case Laws referenced
Kesavananda Bharati v. state of Kerala(1973): established the basic structure doctrine, ruling that parliament could not amend the Constitution in a way that alters its fundamental framework.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain(1975): struck down the 39th Amendment, reinforcing the application of the basic structure doctrine.
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): preceded the basic structure doctrine, holding that Parliament could not amend Fundamental rights.
I.R.Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu(2007): reaffirmed that principles laid down in Minerva Mills, holding that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule could be reviewed if they violated the basic structure.
Impact Of The Judgment
Reassertion of Constitutional Supremacy:- the judgment reinforced that the Constitution, not Parliament, is supreme in India.
Judicial independence:- it safeguarded the judiciary’s power to review amendments and laws, ensuring that no authority could overstep its bounds.
Balance between Rights and Duties:- the judgment upheld the coexistence of fundamental rights and directive principles, ensuring socio- economic justice without compromising individual liberties.
Strengthened the basic structure Doctrine:- it solidified the principle that Parliament’s amending power is subject to constitutional constraints.
Conclusion: the Minerva Mills judgment reinforced the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution, leaving a lasting legacy for Indian democracy. By declaring the controversial provisions of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional , the Court safeguarded the sanctity of the Constitution’s basic structure and ensured that Parliament cannot encroach upon its core values.
The Court’s ruling had several far-reaching implications:
Reaffirming judicial review:- Judicial review remains a cornerstone of Indian democracy, enabling the judiciary to act as a check on the potential excesses of the legislature and executive. This ensures that all actions of the state are subject to Constitutional scrutiny.
Protecting individual liberties:- by striking down the precedence of directive principles over fundamental rights, the Court upheld the inviolability of individual liberties, which are essential for a free and democratic society.
Preserving constitutional harmony:- the judgment emphasized the harmonious coexistence of Parts III and IV of the Constitution. It Acknowledged the importance of directive principles in achieving socio-economic justice but maintained that they could not undermine fundamental rights.
Strengthening the Doctrine of Basic Structure:- the judgment reiterated that the Constitution’s core principles, such as democracy, judicial review, and individual freedoms, are beyond the reach of legislative amendments. This doctrine continues to serve as a bulwark against unconstitutional encroachments.
The case established that the Constitution is not merely a legal document but a social contract that ensures the protection of individual rights while promoting collective welfare. The Minerva Mills Judgment reaffirmed that the judiciary is the ultimate custodian of this social contract, standing as a sentinel to guard against the erosion of constitutional values. The decision continues to influence Indian constitutional law, ensuring that the balance of power remains intact and the principles of justice, liberty, and equality are preserved for future generations.
FAQS
What is the basic structure doctrine?
The basic structure doctrine introduced in Kesavananda Bharti v. state of Kerala(1973),limit Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by ensuring that its fundamental framework is preserved.
Why was the 42nd Amendment partially struck down in Minerva Mills?
The court found Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional as they violated the basic structure by curbing judicial review and prioritizing directive principles over fundamental rights.
What is the significance of judicial review in this case?
Judicial review ensures that amendments and laws do not violate the constitution’s basic structure. The judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional supremacy.
How did Minerva Mills balance fundamental rights and directive principles?
The judgment emphasized that Part III and IV of the Constitution must coexist harmoniously, ensuring individual rights while promoting socio-economic justice.
What impact did the judgment have on Indian constitutional law?
The judgment fortified the basic structure doctrine, strengthened judicial independence, and reinforced rights and the collective good.
