Profile
Settings
Refer your friends
Sign out
The Supreme Court made important clarifications on the application of the fundamental structure concept in the Minerva Mills case. The court found that the constitution limits parliament’s ability to modify the constitution. As a result, the parliament cannot use its limited authority to grant itself infinite authority. Furthermore, a majority of the court decided that parliament’s ability to alter is not the same as its power to destroy.
Minerva Mills judgement
THE CASE’S FACTS
The Sick Textiles Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974, was passed by Parliament. It was established to fulfil a goal of wide public interest, namely, the reconstruction of the textile company’s poor assets and the development of a feasible solution.
Its goal was to ensure that goods were available at reasonable costs so that the general population would not be harmed. Minerva Mills Ltd. was a textiles firm with a limited liability corporation. It was in the silk clothing manufacturing industry.
Under Section 15 of the Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951, the Central Government constituted a committee to investigate the functioning mechanism of Minerva Mills Ltd. in 1970.
The petitioner raised various points in his pleadings. It contested the central government’s order to seize management and control of Minerva Mills Ltd.; it contested the constitutionality of the 39th Amendment Act, which introduced the Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalization) Act under Entry 105 of the 9th Schedule; and, finally, it contested Article 31 B of the Constitution. All of these claims, however, are addressed in a separate set of petitions. The current petition addresses only a few specific topics.
Visit to know more about UPSC Question Paper
THE CASE’S ISSUE
The following are the case’s significant issues:
- Is the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act of 1976, Sections 4 and 5, constitutional?
- Is Article 368’s clauses 4 and 5 constitutionally valid?
DECISION
A majority of the judges, including Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice N. L. Untwalia, Justice A. C. Gupta, and Justice P. S. Kailasam, handed down the decision. Justice P. N. Bhagwati wrote the dissenting opinion.
1) THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 42ND AMENDMENT ACT OF 1976 (ARTICLE 31C)
Article 31 C was amended by Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act. Article 31 C was amended in such a way that the Directive Principle of State Policy was given supreme power. Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution were amended to safeguard the statute from any form of review or challenge under Article 14 or 19.
2) ARTICLE 368’S VALIDITY
CLAUSE 5 OF ARTICLE 368 a) (BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE)
When looking at clause 5 of Article 368, the court emphasised that any provision that provides an organ of the state infinite authority is unconstitutional. The ability to alter that is with Parliament is restricted, according to it.
Minerva Mills case 1980
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has the authority to change the Constitution without jeopardising the fundamental structural concept.
Fundamental rights can be amended by Parliament as long as they are consistent with the basic structural theory.
The section that limited Judicial Review was knocked down by the Court.
The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 was passed in response to this decision, which stated that all or any Directive Principles of State Policy would take precedence over the Fundamental Rights of Articles 14 and 19.
The case’s facts
Minerva Mills is a textile mill in Bengaluru’s vicinity. In 1970, the Central Government created a committee under Section 15 of the Industries Development Act, 1951, in response to a significant drop in Minerva mill production.
In October 1971, the committee delivered its findings to the federal government. The National Textile Corporation Limited, established under the Industries Development Act of 1951, was given permission by the Central Government to take over the administration of the Minerva mills.
Also read
Minerva Mills case CITATION
Arguments of the Petitioner
The ability of Parliament to modify the constitution is restricted, and the Constitution has inherent constraints that limit the scope of amendments under article 368.
The purpose of Article 368 is to amend the constitution in such a way that the core structure of the constitution is not altered.
Though the state is required by the Constitution to consider the Directive Principles of State Policy when establishing legislation, such DPSP’s may only be achieved through legal methods. The Parliament cannot ignore Part III’s Fundamental Rights in order to attain DPSPs.
Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment deprives affected persons of their right to a legal remedy, which is a key tenet of democracy. In a democratic state when laws like the one outlined in section 55 of the 42nd Amendment are passed, democracy is doomed to fail.
Conclusion:
As a result, it may be determined that the authority to alter granted to Parliament is not unrestricted. Article 368 of the Constitution grants Parliament a limited amount of power. The Parliament cannot go beyond this power to change the Constitution’s basic structure. The relevance of the Kesavananda Bharati Case’s Basic Structure Doctrine cannot be overstated. Any statute or amendment that attempts to go beyond or beyond the fundamental structural concept will be declared unlawful. The court further stated that the authority of judicial review cannot be revoked.
