Authored By: Kashish Bagwan
Renaissance Law College
This landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India clarified the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine. The case addressed the conflict between Parliament’s claim of unlimited amending power and the judiciary’s role in protecting the Constitution’s fundamental framework. The Court held that the Constitution is supreme, and Parliament cannot use its amending power to destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.
See Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 (1980). The case was decided by a bench of five judges, with a majority of 4:1.
Historical Background
During the Emergency (1975–77), the government led by Indira Gandhi enacted the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. This amendment attempted to expand Parliament’s amending power and limit the scope of judicial review over constitutional amendments. Minerva Mills Ltd., a textile company, had been nationalized under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. The company challenged this nationalization, and in doing so, also challenged the validity of the 42nd Amendment’s provisions.
Constitutional Issues
- Is Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution unlimited?
- Can Parliament alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure?
- Can the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) override Fundamental Rights?
Contested Constitutional Provisions
The 42nd Amendment introduced two key changes that were challenged before the Court:
- Expansion of Article 31C: This provision sought to protect laws implementing DPSPs from being challenged on the ground that they violated Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 or 19.
- Amendment to Article 368: This amendment attempted to grant Parliament unlimited amending power and sought to exclude judicial review of constitutional amendments altogether.
Arguments Presented
The petitioners (Minerva Mills) argued that Parliament’s amending power is not absolute, that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be destroyed, that Fundamental Rights are essential to liberty, and that judicial review is a necessary feature of a constitutional democracy.
The Union of India argued that Parliament’s amending power is absolute, that DPSPs are essential for achieving social and economic justice, and that social welfare goals should take precedence over individual rights.
Holding
The Supreme Court struck down the impugned provisions of the 42nd Amendment. It held that the expanded Article 31C, insofar as it sought to immunize laws giving effect to DPSPs from judicial review for violation of Fundamental Rights, was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that judicial review and the harmonious balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles together form part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and Parliament cannot amend this balance out of existence. Similarly, the clauses added to Article 368 that purported to give Parliament unlimited amending power and to exclude judicial review of amendments were also held unconstitutional, as they were inconsistent with the basic structure doctrine first articulated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
Criticism
The judgment has attracted differing views. Some critics argue that the judiciary, by striking down these amendments, limited Parliament’s democratic authority to legislate on matters of public importance. Others contend that allowing DPSPs to override Fundamental Rights entirely could have slowed the pace of social justice reform by removing a key check on legislative overreach.
Conclusion
The Minerva Mills judgment firmly established three principles: first, that the Constitution is supreme and Parliament’s amending power is limited by the basic structure doctrine; second, that judicial review is itself part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded by constitutional amendment; and third, that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy must be read in harmony, with neither category permitted to override the other entirely. The decision remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, ensuring that no organ of government, including Parliament acting in its constituent capacity, can place itself beyond the reach of judicial review.
