Minerva Mills Case

Minerva Mills vs Union of India is a landmark decision safeguarding the Constitution’s “fundamental framework” as it was changed by Parliament.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1986, were unconstitutional because they allowed parliament “limitless powers” to modify the constitution. The Minerva Mills Case provided a new clause added to the basic structure doctrine concerning judicial review and harmonising Fundamental Rights and State Policy Directive Principles. This Case made two amendments unconstitutional and null, Including the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976.

Issue

Constitutional Validity of 42nd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1976

Background

• To serve the general public interest, the Parliament devised a magnificent solution involving reconstructing the poor assets of enterprises important to the general public. As a result, on December 24, 1974, Parliament passed The ill textile undertakings (taking over of management) Act, 1974 [Act no. 57 of 1974] to achieve the stated goal

• Minerva Mills was a textile factory in the Indian state of Karnataka that mass-produced silk garments and sold them to the general population. The central government was sceptical that the corporation met the requirements for being labelled a sick industry. As a result, the Central Government constituted a committee u/s 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 in 1970 to prepare a thoroughly detailed report on Minerva Mills’ operations. On October 19, 1971, the Central government empowered National Textile Corporation Limited (a corporation established under the 1951 act) to take over the operation of Minerva Mills based on the Committee’s recommendations

• As a result, the Central Government constituted a committee u/s 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 in 1970 to prepare a thoroughly detailed report on Minerva Mills’ operations. On October 19, 1971, the Central government empowered National Textile Corporation Limited (a corporation established under the 1951 act) to take over the operation of Minerva Mills based on the Committee’s recommendations

• We know about the Keshavanand Bharti case because the Supreme Court presented the Constitution’s basic structure concept in this case. The Supreme Court stated that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, but the amendment should not be such that the Constitution’s basic structure is altered. The development of the concept of the basic structure of the constitution certainly limited the powers of a constitutional amendment by Parliament at the start of the term that destroyed the basic spirit of the constitution, but this was a period when there was a conflict between the Supreme Court and Parliament. As a result, Parliament passed the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, also known as the “Mini-Constitution”

Check out the complete UPSC Syllabus

Minerva Mills case verdict (1980)

On July 31, 1980, a historic judgment was handed out. The court ruled two amendments to the Constitution introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 null and unconstitutional.

The case of Minerva Mills is the first change (1980)

• Article 368 of the Constitution was amended by the 42nd Amendment (which provides for power and procedure for amendment of the Constitution). Article 368 was amended to include clauses 4 and 5, which read as follows:

• (4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or purported to be made under this article shall be called into a dispute in any court for any reason, whether before or after the commencement of section 55 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976

• (5) For the avoidance of doubt, it is stated that Parliament’s constituent power to alter the provisions of this Constitution by way of addition, variation, or repeal under this article is unrestricted in any form

Visit to know more about UPSC Exam Pattern

The Court’s Decision in the Minerva Mills Case (1980)

Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd (Amendment) Act 1986 were found invalid by a majority of 4:1 in a judgment dated July 31, 1980.

The writ petition challenging the legality of Sections 5(b), 19(3), 21 (read with the 2nd schedule), 25, and 27 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, was also dismissed.

Also read UPSC Question Paper

Conclusion

The contradiction between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) can be viewed as a confrontation between the person and the state. While Parliament frequently attempted to impose the state’s and DPSPs’ supremacy over Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court protected individual rights as enshrined in the Constitution by issuing appropriate decisions. Minerva Mills Case Summary: The Supreme Court added a new clause to the basic structure doctrine concerning judicial review and harmonising Fundamental Rights and State Policy Directive Principles. The Court also decided that the basic structure theory includes the Parliament’s limited modifying power.