In the minerva mills case, the Supreme Court provided significant clarifications about the use of the basic structure idea. The court determined that the parliament’s power to amend the constitution is restricted by the constitution. The parliament cannot therefore give itself unlimited jurisdiction by abusing its restricted authority. Moreover, a majority of the court determined that parliament does not have the same right to destroy as it does to change.
minerva mills v union of india Case Facts
- Karnataka’s Minerva Mills was a textile plant. It was primarily engaged in the industrial manufacturing of silk textiles on a huge scale.
- The government was acquiring failing companies for public use at the time, totally dedicated to its socialist program.
- A committee was formed by the Central Government to look into the Company after a notable drop in production, in accordance with section 15 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951.
- The government declared the minerva mills to be a sick enterprise and took control of them, treating them accordingly.
- The National Textile Corporation Ltd. was mandated by section 18a of the industries act to assume administration of the company due to mismanagement of the firm’s operations, which was brought to light by passing an order under the aforementioned clause.
- This resulted in the company being taken over in compliance with the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974.
- After that, the High Court received a challenge to the takeover, but the case was eventually dismissed. Section 4 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment exempts any acts taken to enforce the socialist program from judicial review, hence the corporation was powerless to dispute the judgment in court.
- Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ suit under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution with the Supreme Court of India, contesting the validity of Sections 4 and 55 of the 1976 Constitutional Amendment.
minerva mills v union of india Issues
- Are Sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act of 1976 constitutional?
- Are clauses 4 and 5 of Article 368 constitutional?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
Nani Palkhivala, the Janata Government’s ambassador, defended the case on behalf of the Minerva Mills’ former owners on behalf of the petitioners after feeling compelled to return to India to defend human rights.
- There are restrictions on Parliament’s power to amend the constitution, and there are additional limitations when changing the constitution under article 368 of indian constitution.
- article 368 of indian constitution is only applicable to amendments that do not change the fundamental principles of our Constitution.
- Fundamental rights must not be violated in order to attain the DPSPs. Stated differently, the DPSP lacks the power to supersede fundamental rights. The constitution’s two parts need to be harmoniously connected; if one is strengthened at the expense of the other, mayhem will result.
- The foundation of democracy is the right to file a lawsuit whenever one wants. This essential legal freedom was restricted by Section 4 of the amendment, and as a result, our democracy will collapse. They ought to be deemed ineffectual as a result.
- The idea of checks and balances is essential to democracy’s correct operation. Anarchy will ensue if one branch of government gains absolute power.
Respondent:
Attorney general L.N. Sinha and assistant solicitor general K.K. Venugopal defended the State; both were in a dangerous position to defend the amendment passed during the emergency period:
- The fundamental structural idea was reaffirmed by Article 31C of the Indian Constitution, which established Directive Principles as objectives in the absence of Fundamental Rights.
- The basic structure theory will not be violated in any way if the fundamental rights are harmed.
- There should be no limitations on the Parliament’s ability to alter laws in order to fulfill the objectives outlined in the Directive Principle of State Policy.
- The Court should not decide on the matter of academic interest.
- The government helped the business secure funds by facilitating the citizenship procedure.
minerva mills v union of india Judgment
- The Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend the Constitution without endangering its core structural principles.
- Parliament may alter fundamental rights as long as they remain consistent with the fundamental structural principle.
- The Court overturned the part that restricted judicial review.
- In reaction to this ruling, the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 was enacted, which declared that the Fundamental Rights of Articles 14 and 19 would be superseded by all or any Directive Principles of State policy.
Therefore, it can be concluded that Parliament does not have limitless authority to amend. The Constitution’s Article 368 gives Parliament some restricted authority. The Parliament is unable to alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution beyond this authority. One cannot stress the importance of the basic structure doctrine in the Kesavananda Bharati Case. Any law or amendment that tries to expand upon the core idea of the structure will be ruled illegal. The court went on to say that judicial review power could not be taken away.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
