Authored By: Simon
Panjab University Regional Centre, Hoshiarpur
Case Name: Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors, AIR 1789 SCR (1) 206 Supreme Court of India decided in April 1980 with 4:1 majority
Introduction
To protect the rights of the individual, the judiciary again took steps to protect those rights. In the case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India a similar attempt was made to exploit the power of the Parliament.[1]
It is a landmark judgment that declared Sec 4 and 55 of 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act,1976 is unconstitutional and it is against the principle of Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Supreme Court gave significant remarks about application of basic structure doctrine in the Minerva Mills Case. The Court determined that Directive principles of State Policy cannot take precedence over Fundamental Rights.
Facts of the case
The petitioner, Minerva Mills LTD, was a textile Company that produced silk clothing in large quantity in the state of karnataka
The central Government considering the substantial fall in the production of minerva mills, appointed a committee under sec 15 of industrial development act,1951. The in 1971. The central government authorised the national textile corporation ltd to take over the management of minerva mills.
In the 39th amendment, Nationalization was included in the 9th schedule which was outside purview of Judicial review.
After a huge setback in Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain 1975, 42nd amendment was passed in parliament which amended Art 31C through Sec 4 of Constitutional amendment Act, 1976. Further sec 55 of the 42nd constitutional amendment,1976 made amendment in Art 368
The petitioner challenges:
- Sec 4 and 55 of 42nd amendment act,1976
- They challenge the validity of sec5(b), 19(3), 21, 25 and 27
- Order of central government to nationalise minerva mills appointed a
- The primacy of Directive principle of the state policy over the fundamental rights.
This case mark a landmark judgment that create history and restrict the power of parliament under article 368 and issue before Supreme Court are-
Issues before Supreme Court:
Issue 1: Whether insertion made under article 31C and art 368 through sec 4 and 55 of the 42nd constitutional amendment,1976 does hamper the basic structure doctrine?
Issue 2: Whether the Directive Principle of State Policy has primacy over Fundamental rights to the Indian constitution?
Argument of the petitioner
The petitioner was represented by Naini Palkivala. He felt the need to protect human rights, so he argued the case on behalf of the previous honour of Minerva Mills.
The amendment powers of Parliament are limited under article 368. This would allow Parliament as a creature of the Constitution to commit master.
The decision in Keshavnand Bharti case, mentioned that Parliament has no authority to disturb basic feature.
Due to section 55 of the 42nd amendment act, 1976 that no court would have the power to review the constitution amendment passed by Parliament it damage balance between judiciary and Parliament.[2]
Argument of the respondent
The state was represented by the attorney General L.N Sinha and general K.K Venugopal. They were in a position to defend the amendment passed in the emergency area:
Article 31C of the Indian constitution, reinforces the basic structure of directive principle, which provides goal in absence of fundamental right .
Any harm that is caused to the fundamental right would not amount to violation of the basic structure of doctrine. To achieve the goal frame under the DPSP, the power of Parliament should be supreme, no restriction in amending power[3]
Court reasoning and analysis
After almost 7 years from the passage of the order passed by the central government to conduct the investigation. The decision was announced by the five judge bench of the Supreme Court with a majority of 4:1.
Majority Opinion
The majority opinion was given by Justice Chandrachud on behalf of Justice AC Gupta, N.L Untwalia and P S kailasam.
Article 368 of Indian constitution:
The Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, but should be within its basic framework. The theory of unlimited power to amend the Constitution would eliminate democracy and create totalitarian state
The clause(5) is unconstitutional because it hampers the basic structure of constitution
The clause(5) was struck down because it restricted the court’s power of judicial review and amendment.
Article 31C of Indian constitution:
If part 4 subverts part 3 of Indian Constitution, it would destroy the basic structure
If part 4 needs to be achieved without abrogation of part three of the Constitution.
The most elementary freedom provided under article 19 and 14 of Indian Constitution, therefore, it should be preserved.
Article 31C of the Indian constitution has removed two sides of golden triangle (article 19,14 and 22) which cause serious harm to the people of this country.
Minority opinion
This dissenting opinion was given by Justice Bhagwati :
Article 368:
she was in favour of majority decision in striking down section 55 of 42nd Constitution amendment act,1976
He opinion that the basic feature are an integral part of the Constitution
The clause (4) is Unconstitutional because it breach two basic feature:
1st – Limited amending power of Parliament
2nd – Restriction of judicial review
The clause (5) is unconstitutional and void, and it had an effect of transforming the constitution into an uncontrolled one
Article 31C – It did not damage the basic structure but instead strengthened
Non-compliance of directive principles would be unconstitutional and breach of faith with the people.
No law directly give effect to the directive principal
If the law is substantially connected to DPSP it would be valid, if there is no nexus then it would be struck down.
The decision of Supreme Court
On 31 July 1980, the court announced his judgement
Section 4 and 55 of the 42nd amendment act, 1976 is unconstitutional. The writ petition challenging the validity of section 5(b), 19(3), 21, 25, 27.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that parliament power to amend the constitution is limited under Article 368 and it cannot be used to destroy or damage the basic structure of Constitution.
The Supreme Court held harmony between fundamental rights and Directive principle of state policy.
Therefore sec 4 and 55 of 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 were declared unconstitutional because they attempt to give unlimited power to parliament and absolute primacy to the directive principle of state policy over fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court also held that:
- Judicial review is part of the basic structure.
- Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is necessary.
- Parliament cannot make itself supreme over the Constitution.
Case Laws
The evolution of the structure happened through various landmark judgments. Some of them are as follows:
Golaknath case,1967[4]
In this case, the court held that fundamental rights cannot be amended as there is restriction imposed on the Parliament to amend the fundamental right. They use the concept of implied limitation on the power of Parliament to enter the Constitution.
Keshavnanda Bharti case,1973[5]
In this case, the Supreme Court used the concept of basic structure for the first time. The basic structure cannot be abrogated even through Constitutional amendment. Supreme Court suggested a few basic structure like free and fair election separation of power Parliamentary form of government etc
Indira Gandhi versus Raj Narayan,1975[6]
Throughout the 39th amendment, there was an insertion of a loss that Prime Minister, vice president, speaker is beyond the scope of judicial review
The court in this case, while pronouncing the judgement on the basic structure doctrine held that it was beyond the Parliament amending power and therefore it was struck down
R.Bommai case, 1994[7]
The Supreme Court through this case, inserted preamble in the basic structure doctrine because preamble act as a guiding lamp for the legislature to interpret the Constitution
Therefore, the basic structure doctrine has significant place in Indian constitution limits the power of Parliament frame laws that are inconsistent with the rights of people
Critical Analysis
The case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India is one of the most important judgments in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court delivered this judgment in 1980 after the Emergency period, when the powers of the government had increased greatly. Through this case, the Court protected the Constitution from unlimited political power and strengthened democracy in India.
The judgment mainly focused on the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The Court made it clear that although Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy its basic identity or essential features.
It leads to protection of democracy as the court stopped parliament from becoming too powerful. The judgment ensured that the constitution remains above the government.
The judgment ensured that removing judicial review would weaken citizens’ protection against the misuse of power. By this, the judiciary proved to be a guardian of the Constitution.
The court also ensures to maintain balance between fundamental rights and directive principles. The judgment to have complete dominance to either one.
Conclusion
The judgement in Minerva mills v. UOI India is highly relevant for reinforcing the basic structure doctrine and limiting the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. It declared the Parliament cannot use its amending power to destroy the Constitution Basic feature. The court struck down provisions of 42nd amendment that remove judicial review asserting its an essential part of basic feature.
The rule establishing the power to amend the constitution is not a power to destroy it. Parliament cannot gain unlimited power. The case was a follow up to keshavnanda bharti case, applying and evolving basic structure doctrine. It serves as an authority on limitation of amending powers and supremacy of constitutional fundamental rights.
Reference(S):
[1]Darshit Varora,”Minerva Mills vs Union of India : a significant case that India has forgotten”(2021) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/minerva-mills-vs-union-india-significant-case-india-forgotten/#Introduction> accessed 6 May 2026
[2] “Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.” <https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/manu-sc-0075-1980> accessed 6 may 2026
[3] Darshit Varora,”Minerva Mills vs Union of India : a significant case that India has forgotten”(2021) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/minerva-mills-vs-union-india-significant-case-india-forgotten/#Introduction> accessed 6 May 2026
[4] Golaknath v State of Punjab (1967) AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762
[5] Keshavnanda bharti v State of Kerela (1973) 4 SCC 225
[6] Indira Nehru Gandhi v Shri Raj Narain (1975)AIR 1975 SC 2299
[7] S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
