Legal Brief: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) – A Landmark Judgment on the Basic Structure Doctrine

Key Constitutional Amendments Challenged:

• Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment: It expanded the scope of Article 31C, which stated that laws enacted to implement Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) could not be challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.
• Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment: It amended Article 368, limiting the power of judicial review and prohibiting the Supreme Court from questioning any constitutional amendment.

Issues Raised:

1. Whether the amendments made by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, particularly Sections 4 and 55, violated the Basic Structure Doctrine?
2. Can Parliament, under Article 368, amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its basic structure, including fundamental rights?
3. Does expanding the power of DPSPs over fundamental rights, as allowed by Article 31C, violate the balance between DPSPs and fundamental rights?

Arguments:

1. Petitioner’s Argument (Minerva Mills Ltd.):

   • The petitioners argued that the amendments made by the 42nd Amendment were unconstitutional, as they sought to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution by curtailing judicial review and subordinating fundamental rights to DPSPs.
   • They contended that judicial review is a part of the basic structure and cannot be restricted or removed through constitutional amendments.

2. Respondent’s Argument (Union of India):

   • The government argued that the 42nd Amendment gave supremacy to the Directive Principles over fundamental rights, which is necessary for implementing social welfare measures.
   • It claimed that Parliament had unrestricted power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, and this power included the ability to limit the scope of judicial review.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment as unconstitutional. The Court reiterated and further strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati Case.

1. Basic Structure Doctrine Upheld:

   • The Court held that judicial review and the balance between fundamental rights and DPSPs form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. These cannot be altered or destroyed by Parliament through constitutional amendments.
   • The expanded scope of Article 31C (through Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment) was deemed unconstitutional as it allowed laws that violated fundamental rights to be immunized from judicial review. This was seen as an excessive intrusion on the basic structure of the Constitution.

2. Judicial Review as Part of Basic Structure:

   • The Court ruled that the power of judicial review is fundamental to the Constitution and essential to maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution. Any attempt to reduce or eliminate this power through amendments would violate the Constitution’s basic structure.

3. Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:

   • The Court emphasized that fundamental rights and DPSPs must coexist harmoniously. The amendments that gave DPSPs supremacy over fundamental rights were deemed unconstitutional as they upset the careful balance between the two.

Significance of the Case:

1. Strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine: Minerva Mills reinforced the principle that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament, no matter how wide its amending powers under Article 368.

2. Protection of Judicial Review: The ruling reaffirmed the independence of the judiciary and the essential role of judicial review in protecting the Constitution from legislative overreach.

3. Maintained Balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs: The case restored the equilibrium between DPSPs and fundamental rights, ensuring that both sets of constitutional provisions must be respected without undermining each other.

4. Impact on Future Constitutional Amendments: The decision in Minerva Mills continues to serve as a safeguard against any attempt by Parliament to pass amendments that would disturb the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion:

The Minerva Mills case is a landmark judgment that cemented the Basic Structure Doctrine and protected the fundamental rights and principles that are at the core of the Indian Constitution. By declaring parts of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ensured that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution remains subject to inherent limitations, preserving the core tenets of India’s constitutional democracy.

• Keywords

Minerva Mills case 1980

Basic Structure Doctrine

Judicial Review in India

42nd Constitutional Amendment

Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles

Supreme Court Landmark Judgment

Indian Constitutional Law

Kesavananda Bharati case

Constitutional Amendment Power

Landmark cases in Indian law