Fundamental Rights are the foundation of the Constitution and should be regarded more than a directive concept because they can be implemented by the Court. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are the three branches established by the Constitution. It is crucial that they are properly balanced with one another. There have been occasions when the legislative and executive branches have taken action to increase their authority over the other branches.
The judiciary has repeatedly taken action to defend the rights of the person. A similar attempt to abuse the Parliament’s authority occurred in the Minerva Mills v Union of India case.
minerva mills case summary
minerva mills case facts:
- The minerva mills case related to offer significant clarity regarding how the basic structure theory should be interpreted.
- Karnataka-based Minerva Mills Ltd., also known as petitioner no. 1 firm, was a limited corporation that sold textiles. The other petitioners were Minerva Mils shareholders.
- August 20, 1970: Concerned about Minerva Mills’ declining production rate, the central government established a committee to resolve the company’s issues under Section 15 of The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (henceforth referred to as the IDR law).
- October 19, 1971: In response to the commission’s report, the Central Government issued an order under the virtue of Section 18A of the 1951 Act, allowing National Textile Corporation Ltd. to assume factory management. This was necessary because the company had been mismanaged. In accordance with the terms of the treaty, the Central Government nationalized the corporation and took control of it. The Nationalization Act, also known as the Sick Textile Enterprises (Nationalization) Act, 1974,
- The Petitioners subsequently challenged this order in an appeal to the High Court. The court, however, denied their plea.
- As a result, the Petitioners invoked Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in their writ petition, which they filed with the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Minerva Mills Case Issues:
The key issues in this case are as follows:
- 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 Petitioners:
- There are restrictions on Parliament’s power to amend the constitution, and there are additional limitations when changing the constitution under Article 368.
- Article 368 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.
Contentions by the Respondents:
- 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 fulfil the objectives outlined in the Directive Principle of State Policy.
- The Court should not decide on a matter of academic interest.
- The government helped the business secure funds by facilitating the citizenship procedure.
Minerva Mills Case Judgment:
Nearly seven years after the Central Government’s directive to start the probe was approved. A five-judge Supreme Court court rendered the ruling with a majority of 4:1.
- The minerva mills case date in which it was decided is 31 July, 1980.
- The judge bench comprises of Justice A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.S. Kailasam and Justice Bhagwati.
- Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act revised Article 31 C. By amending Article 31 C, the Directive Principle of State Policy was elevated to the highest authority. The Constitution’s Articles 39(b) and (c) were modified to protect the Act from being examined or contested in any way under Articles 14 or 19.
- The court emphasized that any language that grants an organ of the state unlimited authority is unlawful when examining clause 5 of Article 368. It states that there are limitations on Parliament’s capacity to change that.
Future constitutional cases will be guided by the precedent set by the Minerva Mills decision. This case contributed to the future prevention of further violations of fundamental rights. The ruling in the Minerva Mills case by the court was essential to restoring the Golden Triangle.
In this case, it was made clear how crucial it is to create a balance between Parts III and IV, which deal with Fundamental Rights and DPSP, respectively. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the Constitution’s primacy over Parliament.
For any latest news, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
