DAMODARAM SANJIVIYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P,INDIA

PROJECT TITLE- 42nd AMENDMENT - MINERVA MILLS VS UNION OF

INDIA

SUBJECT- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

NAME OF THE STUDENT: P MEGHNA SRINIVAS

ROLL NO.2019109

3rd SEMESTER

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected professor
Mr.NAGESWAR RAO sir, for giving me this golden opportunity to take up this project regarding 42ND
AMENDMENT- MINERVA MILLS VS UNION OF INDIA. I have tried my best to collect information
about the project in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the given project topic.I would also
like to express my gratitude to Mr.NAGESWAR RAO sir for his great support, guidance, help and
lectures which helped me in doing the project.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.Abstract…………………………………………………………………….. PG 4

2.Synopsis…………………………………………………………………….PG 5

3.Introduction…………………………………………………………………PG 6-8

4.contents of 42nd amendment………………………………………………..PG 8-10

5.Minerva mills vs union of India…………………………………………….PG 11-15

6.Minerva mills vs union of India: analysis in anecdotes……………………PG 16-18

7.Conclusion……………………………………………………………………PG 19

8.Bibliography………………………………………………………………….PG 20
 ABSTRACT

Fundamental Rights are the essence of the Constitution and should be considered more than a directive
principle because they can be enforced by the Court. The three organs of the Constitution include legislation,
executive, and judiciary. It is important that there should be a right balance between them. There have been
instances where the executive and legislative have committed action in order to expand power over the other
organs. To protect the rights of the individual judiciary have time and again taken steps to protect those
rights. In the case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India a similar attempt was made to exploit the power of
the Parliament.  The judgement of the Supreme Court, in the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India was a
verdict which majestically and proudly reaffirmed the supremacy of the basic structure of our
Constitution.The judgment was issued at a time when the world's largest democracy had just emerged from
the shackles of the notorious Emergency, and courtesy of the ADM Jabalpur decision, the judiciary was in
its darkest hour.Minerva Mills was a critical declaration that would go a long way in cementing a newly
evolved basic framework, bearing the testimony of a resilient judiciary. The Minerva Mills judgment
celebrates its fortieth anniversary today, as we sit to pen down this piece, in an age that its judges dreamed to
be democratic without the emasculation of the individual's rights to liberty, equality and dignity.
 SYNOPSIS

INTRODUCTION: Fundamental Rights are the essence of the Constitution and should be considered more
than a directive principle because they can be enforced by the Court. The three organs of the Constitution
include legislation, executive, and judiciary. It is important that there should be a right balance between
them. There have been instances where the executive and legislative have committed action in order to
expand power over the other organs. To protect the rights of the individual judiciary have time and again
taken steps to protect those rights. In the case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India a similar attempt was
made to exploit the power of the Parliament.  The judgement of the Supreme Court, in the case of Minerva
Mills v. Union of India was a verdict which majestically and proudly reaffirmed the supremacy of the basic
structure of our Constitution.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: To know the validity of the 42nd amendment of the constitution

SCOPE OF STUDY: the study is limited to the 42nd amendment act and case analysis of Minerva mills vs
Union of India.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY: To know how the what were the legal challenges of the 42nd amendment
with reference to Minerva mills vs union of India

LITERATURE REVIEW: the researcher has taken information from various web sources and books

RESERACH METHODOLGY:

RESEARCH QUESTION:Whether the 42nd amendment was unconstitutional? and if yes in what way?
 INTRODUCTION
"Government and Judges might come and go but democracy; the basic features of the constitution should
remain eternal". - Justice Y.V Chandrachud.
The above statement of the Hon'ble judge appears to be an irony in 42nd Constitutional Amendment in India
of democratic mysteries under the rule of the said sovereign; The Parliament. It is ultra vires of Parliament
to make laws seeking any amendment of the constitution which would infringe, restrict or diminish rights of
individuals. The constitution was to be amended to strengthen the strands of the seamless web but stretched
nearly to the breaking point. The Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act 1976 "is responsive to the
aspirations of the people, and reflects the realities of the present time and the future". Democracy had been
abolished indefinitely, possibly forever. Above all, the importance of fundamental rights was greatly
devalued. Thus, the whole complexion of the constitution was sought to be changed so as to reduce the
element of constitutionalism therein. 42nd Constitutional Amendment was enacted due to the
recommendations of Swaran Singh Committee. It was in fact appointed "to study the question of amendment
of the Constitution in the light of "experience".
The 42nd amendment, officially known as The Constitution (Forty-second amendment) Act, 1976, was
enacted during the Emergency (25 June 1975 – 21 March 1977) by the Indian National
Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi.
Almost all parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble and amending clause, were changed by the 42nd
Amendment, and some new articles and sections were inserted. The amendment's fifty-nine clauses stripped
the Supreme Court of many of its powers and moved the political system toward parliamentary sovereignty.
It curtailed democratic rights in the country, and gave sweeping powers to the Prime Minister's Office. The
amendment gave Parliament unrestrained power to amend any parts of the Constitution, without judicial
review. It transferred more power from the state governments to the central government, eroding India's
federal structure. The 42nd Amendment also amended Preamble and changed the description of India from
"sovereign democratic republic" to a "sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic", and also changed the
words "unity of the nation" to "unity and integrity of the nation".
The Emergency era had been widely unpopular, and the 42nd Amendment was the most controversial issue.
The clampdown on civil liberties and widespread abuse of human rights by police angered the public.
The Janata Party which had promised to "restore the Constitution to the condition it was in before the
Emergency", won the 1977 general elections. The Janata government then brought about the 43rd and 44th
Amendments in 1977 and 1978 respectively, to restore the pre-1976 position to some extent. However, the
Janata Party was not able to fully achieve its objectives.
On 31 July 1980, in its judgement on Minerva Mills v. Union of India 1, the Supreme Court declared
unconstitutional two provisions of the 42nd Amendment which prevent any constitutional amendment from
being "called in question in any Court on any ground" and accord precedence to the Directive Principles of

1
Minerva mills limited v. UOI ,AIR 1986 SC 2030, 2036
State Policy over the Fundamental Rights of individuals respectively. This respectively amends mostly of
whole constitution, hence is called as mini constitution.

The Concept of basic structure 

In the Indian Constitution, there is no mention of the term of basic structure; it has come to its existence
through a series of judgments. This doctrine mentions that amendments can be made in the Constitution
without hampering the basic structure. 
The subject  matter under the basic structure doctrine include: 
The rule of law. 
Separation of power between the Centre and the State. 
The balance between Fundamental Rights and the Directive principle of the State policy. 
Right to have free and fair elections. 
The Parliamentary system of government. 
Powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32, 147, 142 and 136 of the Indian Constitution. 
Power of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution. 
Article 14 right to equality. 
Limited power of the parliament to amend the Constitution. 
Unity and Integrity of the nation. 
Secularism and Socialism. 
Preamble  

Evolution of the basic structure doctrine 

The evolution of this doctrine happened through various landmark judgments. Some of them are as follows: 
I. C. Golaknath & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anrs.2
In this case, the court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended; there is a restriction imposed on the
parliament to amend fundamental rights; there is a need for a new constitutional assembly. 
They used the concept of implied limitation on the power of the parliament to amend the constitution. 
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala3
In this case, the Supreme Court first used the concept of the Basic Structure for the first time. 
The basic structure doctrine cannot be abrogated even through a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court suggested a few basic structures like Free and fair elections, separation Of Power,
Parliamentary Form of government,  etc. 
Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain4

2
1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762
3
 (1983) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
4
1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333.
Through the 39th amendment, there was an insertion of a clause that Prime Minister, Vice President,
Spreaker is beyond the Scope of judicial review. The Court in this case, while pronouncing judgment on the
basic structure doctrine held that bit was beyond the Parliament amending power and therefore it was struck
down.   
Minerva Mills v. Union of India.5

The Supreme Court added a new clause to the basic structure doctrine, judicial review and harmony between
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of the State Policy. In this case, the Court also held that the
Limited amending power of the Parliament is a part of the basic structure doctrine. 

Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others6

In this case, the Supreme Court inserted various grounds for implementation of reservations like the creamy
layer, 50% restriction, etc. 
The rule of law was inserted in the basic structure doctrine. 
Unity and Integrity of the nation, Federal Structure, Secularism, and Socialism were inserted by the court
through this case.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India7 ([1994] 2 SCR 644 : AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3 SCC1)
The Supreme Court, through this case, inserted Preamble in the basic structure doctrine because Preamble
acts as a guiding lamp for the legislature to interpret the Constitution. 
Therefore basic structure doctrine has a significant place in the Indian Constitution it limits the power of the
Parliament to frame laws that are inconsistent with the rights of the people. 8

5
AIR 1980 SC 1789
6
 AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454
7
([1994] 2 SCR 644 : AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3 SCC1)

8
 Contents of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 
The amendments inserted two new parts IV-A and  XIV-A and eleven Articles and substituted 36 Articles
of the Indian Constitution: 
Preamble: The amendment inserted three new words in the preamble Socialist, Secular, and integrity. 
Directive Principle: The Amendment was made in Article 31-A which widened its scope and held that all
directive principles of the State policy would have supremacy over the Fundamental Rights. (It was struck
down by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills Judgment). Three new directive principles were added:
First equal Justice and free Legal Aid.
Second Participation of workers in the management of industries.
Third Improvement in the environment and safeguarding the forest and wildlife.
Fundamental Duties: Part IV A of the Indian Constitution which led down ten Fundamental Duties of the
Indian Constitution. 
Parliament, Executive, and the State Legislature:  According to Article 55 allocation of seats in the
Parliament and the State Legislature were determined on the census of 1971.  According to Article 74, it
made it clear that the President has the power to advise the council of ministers.  Articles 105(3) and Article
194 provided privileges to each house of the Parliament
Judiciary: Significant changes were made in the judiciary there was an insertion of six new Articles
32, 131A, 139, 144A, and 226A. It also amended various existing Articles 145, 225, 227, and 228. 
Supreme court article 139A provided powers to the Supreme Court to transfer cases from the High Court to
the Supreme Court. This power was provided to the court to deal with important issues and dispose of it
expeditiously. 
Amendments were made in Article 226 it redefined the Jurisdiction of the High Court. It restricted the
Jurisdiction of the High Court to try cases which involved:
For enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Cases involving Substantial injury to the citizens.
Substantial Failure of Justice.  
The relation between Union and States: The amendment Act added Article 257A provided power to the
Central Government to send any armed forces to any state in a grave situation. The amendment led to the
transfer of areas from the State List to Concurrent List: 
An Administration of Justice.
Education
Forests
Prevention of wild animals and Birds. 
Weight and Measures. 
Services: Article 311 was amended which took away the right of the Government servant to represent
himself in the Second Stage of inquiry. Amendment was made in Article 312 there was an establishment of
All India Judicial Service. 
Tribunals: The amendments inserted two clauses under Article 323. Article 323A provided the power to
establish the Administrative Tribunal by a Parliamentary Law. Article 323B Powers to the Parliament to
establish various tribunals and disputes are outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 
Emergency: In Article 352 there was an insertion that allowed the President to declare an emergency to any
part or whole of India through a proclamation. Article 356 substituted from Six Months to One Year. 
Amendment: Under Article 368 two new clauses (4) and (5) were added which gave ultimate power to the
Parliament to form law and won’t be judicial review. These Clauses were struck down in the Minerva Mills
Case. Amendment was made in Article 103 which removed the question of disqualification from judicial
scrutiny. Similar change was made in Article 192 including the State Legislature. 
President Powers to remove Difficulties: This clause was set up to remove difficulties existing in the
provisions of the Constitution. This provision gave immense power to the President.  
 Minerva Mill Ltd. And Ors V Union Of India And Ors

Equivalent Citation – AIR 1980 SC 1789, 1981 SCR (1) 206 Petitioner:
Minerva Mills Ltd. &Ors.
Respondent: Union of India &Ors. Date of
Judgement: 31/07/1980 Bench:
Y.V. Chandrachud (then CJI), A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia,
P.S. Kailsam& P.N. Bhagwati JJ.

Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors v Union of India and Ors 9 is one of the most important judgments which
guarded the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution form being amended by parliament. The constitutionality of
sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1986 gave the parliament ‘unlimited powers’ to amend the
constitution and hence were struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
BACKGROUND
The Parliament in order to serve general public interest came up with a noble solution by reconstructing
bad assets of companies having importance to the general public. Therefore, in accordance with the
achievement of the said solution the Parliament enacted The sick textile undertakings (taking over of
management) Act, 1974 [Act no. 57 of 1974] on December 24, 1974.
The preamble to the act contained the following words……. “An Act to provide for the acquisition and
transfer of the sick textile undertakings, and the right, title and interest of the owners in respect of the sick
textile undertakings, specified in the First Schedule with a view to re-organizing and rehabilitating such
sick textile undertakings so as to subserve the interests of the general public by the augmentation of the
production and distribution, at fair prices, of different varieties of cloth and yarn, and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto”. Therefore, the said act aimed at providing general public
commodities at fair prices and to recover sick textile undertaking so that general masses won’t suffer.
Minerva Mills was a textile industry in the State of Karnataka engaged in the mass production of silk
clothes and provided market to the general public. The Central Govt. was suspicious that company
fulfilled the criteria to be classified as a sick industry. Therefore, the Central Govt. in 1970 appointed a
committee u/s 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for making a full detailed
report analyzing the affairs of Minerva Mills. Relying on the Committee’s report, on October 19, 1971 the
Central govt. empowered National Textile Corporation Limited (a body under the 1951 act) to take over
the management of Minerva Mills u/s 18A of the 1951 act.
Earlier through 39th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1975 the Parliament inserted Nationalization Act,
1974 into Ninth Schedule which means that any challenge on the said act was outside the purview of
judicial review. Now, the petitioner was not able to challenge this aspect of 39th amendment since this
9
 AIR 1980 SC 1789
 remedy was barred by 42nd Amendment. The Parliament after suffering massive defeat in Indira Nehru
Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain[1]in order to make its power and authority supreme passed 42nd amendment
(as discussed earlier in Indira Nehru Gandhi summary) to bar any challenge on constitutional amendments
in courts of law.[2]
Therefore, the main issue before the court was to check the constitutionality of 42nd Constitutional
(Amendment) Act, 1976.
Brief Facts
1. Minerva Mills Ltd. (herein after referred to as the petitioner no. 1/ the Company) is a limited company
dealing in textiles in Karnataka. The other petitioners are the shareholders in Minerva Mills.
2. August 20, 1970- The Central Government, in apprehension of the substantial fall in production of
Minerva Mills, appointed a committee under section 15 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act,
1951 (herein after referred to as the IDR Act) to make an investigation of the affairs of Minerva Mills Ltd.
3. October 19, 1971- After the submission of the committee report, the Central Government passed order
under section 18A of the 1951 Act that authorised the National Textile Corporation Ltd., to take over the
management of the Mills on the ground of mismanagement of the company affairs. Hence, this undertaking
was nationalised and taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of the Sick Textile
Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (herein after referred t as the Nationalization Act). 1 1980 AIR
17894. Thereafter, the petitioners challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court, however,
dismissed their petition.
5. The petitioners, therefore, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under article 32 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
6. They challenged the constitutionality and validity of the following;
a. Sections 5(b), 19(3), 21 (read with 2nd schedule), 25 and 27, of the Sick Textile Undertakings
(Nationalisation) Act, 1974
b. Order of the Central Government dated October 19, 1971
c. Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976; and
d. The primacy given to the Directive Principals of State Policy over the fundamental Rights.
ISSUE
Constitutional Validity of 42nd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1976
Whether insertion made under Article 31C and Article 368 through sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd
Amendment Act, 1976 does hamper the basic structure doctrine? 
Whether the Directive Principle of the State policy has primacy over Fundamental right to the Indian
Constitution?   
Petitioner’s Arguments

 Parliament’s power of amending the constitution is limited and there are inherent limitations within
the Constitution to limit the scope of amendment under article 368.
 The scope of Article 368 is just to amend the constitution in a way such that there is no change in
the basic structure of the Constitution.
 Though the state is obligated by the Constitution that while making laws they have to compulsorily
look into the Directive Principles of the State Policy[3] however, achievement of such DPSP’s is
only through permissible means. The Parliament in order to achieve DPSP’s cannot override
Fundamental Rights set out in Part III.
 42nd Amendment under section 55 strips off the affected parties there right to legal remedy which
is a basic essence of democracy. In a democratic state where laws such as mentioned u/s 55 of 42nd
Amendment are made the democracy is sure to collapse.
 Striking a harmonious balance between the provisions of Part III & Part IV is where justice lies and
making one part subservient to another would only lead to chaos.
 There would be no meaning to the democracy if the powers of an institution are to be made
absolute by the Constitution.To run a smooth democracy there should be checks & balances upon
each institution of the government.
 There need not necessarily be violation of Part III for fulfillment of provisions of Part IV.

Respondent’s Arguments

 If in course of achieving the DPSP’s there is unintentional injury to Fundamental rights then it
cannot be said as violation of Basic Structure.
 The directive principles itself are integral for the functioning of the nation therefore, achievement
of these integral principles cannot be said as violation of Basic structure,
 Further, if any harm is caused to the Part III provisions then it cannot be termed as violation of
Basic structure.
 The parliament, in order to achieve the hard to get goals mentioned under Part IV, must be supreme
in its sphere & there should not be any sort of limitation upon it. Therefore, there should not be any
implied or inherent limitations upon the amending power of Parliament.
 This conflict between the hierarchy of provisions is an issue of academic interest therefore, the
courts should remain aloof of such issues.
 Judgment
This landmark Judgment came on July 31, 1980. The judgment was divided into 4:1, Y.V. Chandrachud
(then CJI) writing on behalf of himself and (A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.S. Kailsam JJ.) while Justice
P.N. Bhagwati wrote the dissenting opinion. The majority struck down Section 55 & 4 of the 42nd
Amendment as it was in violation of basic structure thereby upholding the Basic Structure doctrine laid
down by Kesavananda Bharti.10 Bhagwati J. wrote the dissenting opinion in the sense that he agreed with
the majority on the point of striking down section 55 however he dissented with the majority on the point
of Section 4 of 42nd Amendment.

The court held that the newly introduced Clause 4&5 were actually inserted to bar the courts to entertain
any challenge on the question of validity of the constitutional amendments. The court beautifully
described the importance of Judicial Review in the following words…..Our Constitution is founded on a
nice balance of power among the three wings of the state namely the Legislature, the Executive & the
Judiciary. It is the function of the Judges nay their duty to pronounce upon the validity of laws. The court
held Section 55 of the amendment act 1976 void since it firstly made challenge in court impossible
&secondly it removes all the restrictions on the power of Parliament under Article 368. The court rightly
interpreted the true object of these new clauses which was to throw away the limitations imposed by
Kesavananda on Parliament.
The newly added clause 5 has the effect of even repealing the entire constitution and change it into a
totalitarian constitution as per the political exigencies of the ruling political party & still it won’t be a
ground for a challenge in the court because of the combined reading of Clause 4&5 of 42nd
Amendment. Depriving the courts their power of judicial review is making Fundamental Rights a box of
rhetoric dreams as they would never be granted and rights without remedies.
The court relying on Kesavananda opined that the power to amend under Art. 368 is not a power to
destroy. In the above said decision the court clearly mentioned the scope of amendment under Article 368.
The court answered about the extent of the word “Amendment”. The court found that the word “amend” in
the provision of Article 368 stands for a restrictive connotation and could not ascribe to a fundamental
change. To understand it simply; the parliament in order to pass a constitutionally valid amendment, the
particular amendment is subject to the application of Basic Structure test and has to pass it.
The court also explained the relationship between the provisions of Part III & Part IV of the Constitution.
The court said that the entire Indian Constitution rests upon the foundation of Part III & Part IV. To give
absolute primacy to one over another will be shaking the foundation of the Constitution. Striking a
harmonious balance between the provisions of Part III & Part IV is where justice lies and making one part
10
(1983) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
subservient to another would only lead to chaos. The provisions of Part IV must be achieved but without
abrogation of FR’s and anything which shakes this balance violates the essential balance of the
Constitution. Therefore, the court in strict terms laid down that the balance between DPSP’s & FR’s is
Basic Structure of the Constitution.

As regards to Section 4 of the amendment act 1976 which tried to separate Article 14 and 19 from Article
31 C this was held void as it destroyed the basic feature. The articles mentioned under Article 14 and 19
are essential elementary articles n modern democracies. Most of the recent laws are passed to satisfy the
obligations of DPSP because of which Art. 14 & 19 have stood withdrawn. These rights are clearly
without any doubt universal because of their presence in Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Therefore, restoring the judgment of Kesavananda on the point of Art. 31 C the court struck down Section
4 of the amendment act 1976.

Bhagwati J. agreed with the majority in striking down Section 55 of the amendment act since it made
judicial review of the amendments impossible. In his view this exclusion of judicial review is indirectly
enlarging the scope of Parliament’s amending capacity. Regarding Cl. 5he wrote that it cannot remove any
doubt which did not existed. However, the amendment in Article 31 C was held valid by him because he
was of the opinion that the court should not on first hand hold any law made under it unconstitutional. In
his opinion the courts should look into the pith of the law by following Doctrine of Pith& Substance. If
the law is substantially connected to the provisions mentioned under DPSP’s then it would be a
constitutional law and on the contrary if there is no nexus between the law and the DPSP’s it would be
surely struck down.
Therefore, the court by 4:1 majority held sections 4 & 55 of the 42nd Constitutional (Amendment) Act,
1976 unconstitutional.
Further, the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the Sections 5(b), 19(3), 21 (read with 2 nd
schedule), 25 and 27, of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, was dismissed.
 Minerva Mills v. Union Of India: an analysis in anecdotes
The gravamens of the challenge in Minerva Mills, were Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act,
1976. Minerva Mills was a textile company which had been nationalized and taken over by the Government
on account of being grossly mismanaged.The petitioners had also challenged the constitutional validity
of Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. However, it had been placed under the Ninth
Schedule by the 39th Amendment Act, and therefore was not amenable to judicial review.
Section 55 of the Amendment Act had amended Article 368 of the Constitution by inserting clauses (4) and
(5), to provide unbridled power to the Parliament to amend the Constitution. Section 4 amended Article 31-
C to shield laws which aimed at advancing the Directive Principles from being challenged in court for
violating Articles 14, 19, or 21.
This essentially translated to a situation where DPSP’s were placed at a higher pedestal than the fundamental
rights and judicial review was blocked.
This amendment had effectively nullified the decision in Kesvananda Bharti, which precluded the
Parliament, from interfering with the basic structure, while amending the Constitution.
Leading the challenge was India’s Constitutional maverick, Nani Palkivala, while the Government was
defended by its Attorney General L.N Sinha and ASG K.K Venugopal (as he was then). Nani Palkivala,
with his eloquence and acerbic wit, tore into the impugned sections of the 42nd Amendment Act, and argued
that giving primacy to the Directive Principles over fundamental rights, demolished the basic structure.
According to him, the principles embedded in the Directive Principles could only be achieved through
permissible means, without infringing the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
Delivering a crushing blow, Nani Palkhivala fiercely submitted that the concepts of justice, liberty and
equality were deeply encapsulated in Articles 14 and 19, and making them subordinate to the Directive
Principles would change the face and scheme of the entire Constitution. He submitted that such an
amendment was beyond the amending power of the Parliament and was liable to be struck down.
Meanwhile the Centre argued that the amendments made to Article 31C did not damage the basic structure,
but rather enforced it. It went on to argue that the State is under an obligation to take steps for promoting the
welfare of the people and deprivation of some of the fundamental rights for the purpose of achieving this
goal cannot possibly amount to a destruction of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The 5-Judge Bench delivered a thumping 4:1 verdict and declared Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd
Amendment Act, 1976 to be ultra vires the Constitution of India.
They ruled that “to destroy the guarantees given by Part III (Fundamental Rights) in order to purportedly
achieve the goals of Part IV (Directive Principles) is to plainly subvert the Constitution by destroying its
basic structure.
The bench noted that to give absolute primacy to Part IV over Part III is to disturb the harmony of the
Constitution. The Bench described the fundamental rights to be transcendental, inalienable and primordial
and further observed that sacrificing them at the altar of DPSPs would rob the Constitution of its identity.
A harmonious equation had to be carved between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in order
to ensure their peaceful co-existence within the constitutional scheme. The harmony between Parts Ⅲ and
Ⅳ had to be preserved in order to prevent them from striking a discordant note with each other.
This balancing act between the two was held to be an essential part of the basic structure. Following the ratio
in Kesvananda Bharti, it was held that Parliament could not assume itself to possess absolute and unlimited
power to amend the Constitution. Terming it as a futile exercise, the judgement put a cap on the wide sweep
of Article 368, thereby preventing any further damage to the basic structure.
The Minerva Mills judgement reaffirmed the significance of Part III of the Constitution of India, and went
on to describe Articles 14, 19, 21 as the golden triangle of the Indian Constitution.
The reasoning of the Court is instructive and deserves to be quoted in full.
“Three Articles of our Constitution, and only three, stand between the heaven of freedom into which Tagore
wanted his country to awake and the abyss of unrestrained power. They are Articles 14, 19 and 21. Article
31C has removed two sides of that golden triangle which affords to the people of this country an assurance
that the promise held forth by the preamble will be performed by ushering an egalitarian era through the
discipline of fundamental rights, that is. without emasculation of the rights to liberty and equality which
alone can help preserve the dignity of the individual.”
Finally, and as an aside, the decision of the Supreme Court became even more significant as it marked the
beginning of a departure from the concept of a “committed judiciary” which had become the norm in the
dark years of the Emergency, and which practically thwarted any implementation of the principles of
independence of the judiciary.
This was amply illustrated by Justice Y.V Chandrachud’s majority opinion where he departed from his
views in Kesvananda Bharti case where he formed a part of the dissenting clan.
While Minerva Mills marked the beginning of the departure from the norm of a committed judiciary, there
still existed certain creases which remained to be ironed out. One such instance was Justice P.N Bhagwati’s
letter to the Prime Minister.
While Minerva Mills was being argued, Justice Bhagwati, in a departure from convention and the principles
of judicial ethics, wrote a congratulatory letter to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for her re-election, in which
he praised her “iron will….uncanny insight and her dynamic vision”. His letter to the Prime Minister
necessarily posed serious questions on the independence of the judiciary and ran counter to the narrative
which the Court in Minerva Mills was attempting to establish.
Interestingly, Justice Bhagwati remained the sole dissenting voice in the Minerva Mills case. In his
dissenting opinion, he gave primacy to the Directive Principles and allowed them to regulate fundamental
rights. This has been analysed forthwith.
Justice Bhagwati’s Dissent: A Red ‘Letter’ Day
The reason why we regard Justice Bhagwati’s dissent as significant, is because this dissent came from a
judge who had pioneered the introduction of PIL’s in India and redefined the Indian jurisprudence with his
progressive verdicts in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India and E.P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu.
While Justice P.N Bhagwati fraternized with the majority by striking down Section 55, he dissented from
them by upholding the amendment made to Article 31C.
Justice Bhagwati was in fact anguished with the fact that the judges didn’t get enough time to review each
other’s drafts. Chintan Chandrachud in his book "The Cases That India Forgot" mentions that Justice
Bhagwati had cited a passage from Justice Chandrachud’s dissenting judgement in the Kesavananda Bharti's
case, to substantiate his decision to uphold the amendments made to Article 31C.
Justice Chandrachud, in his Kesvananda Bharti verdict had noted that “the basic object of conferring
freedoms on individuals [through fundamental rights]’ was to achieve the objectives set out in the directive
principles.” He had further emphasized that fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy both
shared an equally important position within the constitutional framework.
Justice Bhagwati accepted the arguments made by the centre and opined that, laws giving effect to a
Directive Principle with a view to achieve the constitutional goal of socio- economic justice, cannot be held
violative of the basic structure, even if they infringe the right to equality under Article. 14 or any
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19.
He also held that Directive Principles enjoy a very high place in the constitutional scheme and it is only
within this socio-economic framework, that the Fundamental Rights are intended to operate. According to
him, these rights can become meaningful and significant for the poor and the downtrodden, provided that
they operate under the supervision of the socio-economic structure of the Directive Principles.
He therefore, gave impetus to the Directive Principles and neglected the essence of the sacrosanct rights
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India.
 CONCLUSION
Eminent jurist and former Indian Solicitor General, late T.R Andhyarujina, documents in his book, "The
Kesavananda Bharati Case-The Supreme Court and Parliament's Untold Story of Struggle for Supremacy,"
that a separate Constitution Bench in Sanjeev Coke Marketing v. Bharat Coal Limited challenged the
Minerva Mills decision and disagreed with its logic.The reason for their protest was that the Bench in
Minerva Mills undertook an acadeThis prompted the legendary scholar of constitutional law, H.M Seervai,
to initiate a scathing assault on this judgment. When reviewing the Sanjeev Coke decision, he wrote in his
voluminous magum opus, Constitutional Law of India, that judges who do not agree with the majority in
Minerva should not address an issue that is not under consideration. He wrote further that such actions are
antithetical to judicial discipline and should never again be delivered a judgment such as Sanjeev Coke.mic
exercise on an issue which was not essentially a part of the case and which was totally uncalled for.
In short, with its emancipatory power, the landmark verdict at Minerva Mills reinforced the foundational
core on which the construction of the basic structure was built. This was later demonstrated in L Chandra
Kumar v. Union of India's Seven-Judge Bench decision, which relied on Minerva Mills to expressly
integrate judicial review as a non-derogable part of the basic structure. This was further demonstrated in the
decision of the 9-Judge Bench in I.R Coelho (Dead) v. Tamil Nadu State 11, where the Court countenanced
the Minerva Mills ratio and held that the "golden triangle" of Articles 14, 19 and 21 was an inseparable part
of our Constitution's basic structure.
As Brutus noted in Act 4 Scene 3 in Julius Caesar's play, "We must take the current when it serves or lose
our ventures," the Apex Court in Minerva Mills used this current and restored the confidence in the
institution by playing the pivotal role of a "sentinel on the qui vive" in a timely manner.
The judgment was a perfect tribute to the theory of the fundamental structure, which continues to save our
democracy from future parliamentary assaults. The fundamental structure underwent a corresponding
reincarnation as the brilliant bright sun rose from the horizon.

11
 [(1999) 7 SCC. 580] (14.9.1999) 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-M.P JAIN
Online web sources
https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/lest-we-should-forget-the-forty-glorious-years-of-
minerva-mills
https://blog.ipleaders.in/minerva-mills-vs-union-india-significant-case-india-forgotten/
https://www.latestlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Case-Analysis-Minerva-Mills-and-Ors-v-Union-
of-India-and-Ors-By-Monika-Rahar.pdf