Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs.

Union of India

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.

Facts of the Case

• Minerva Mills was a textile mill in Karnataka. It was largely involved in

the large-scale commercial production of silk fabrics.
• At the time, the government was fully committed to its socialist agenda,
and it was acquiring failing businesses for public use.
• Following a significant decline in production, the Central Government
established a committee under section 15 of the Industries
(Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 to investigate the Company.
• The minerva mills were treated similarly, with the government declaring
it a sick enterprise and seizing control.
• Due to mismanagement of the firm’s activities, which was highlighted by
passing an order under the aforementioned provision, the National
Textile Corporation Ltd. was required by Section 18A of the Industries
Act to take over the management of the company.
• The company was taken over in accordance with the terms of the Sick
Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, as a result of this
action.
• Following that, a challenge to the takeover was filed in the High Court,
but the case was dismissed. The corporation was unable to challenge
the judgement in court since section 4 of the 42nd Constitutional
Amendment exempts any actions taken to enforce the socialist
programme from judicial review.
• As a result, the petitioner challenged the legitimacy of Sections 4 and 55
of the 1976 Constitutional Amendment in the Supreme Court of India,
submitting a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

Issues
Is it true that the constitution’s directive principles of state policy (DPSP) take
precedence over the fundamental rights outlined in Part III?

Whether the 42nd Constitutional Amendment’s Sections 4 and 55 contradict the

constitution’s essential structure?

Verdict of the Case

According to the Supreme Court, the Parliament must not use its amending
power to the extent where it abrogates the Indian Constitution or its core
elements.

Conclusion

The Minerva Mills case helped to establish a precedent for future constitutional
cases. This case helped to prevent further abuses of fundamental rights in the
future. In order to restore the Golden Triangle, the court’s decision in the
Minerva Mills case was crucial. The importance of striking a balance between
Parts III and IV, which cover Fundamental Rights and DPSP, respectively, was
highlighted in this instance. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms the supremacy
of the Constitution above Parliament.

In this case, the Court added two features to the list of basic structure features.
Judicial review and the fundamental rights-DPSP balance were the two issues.
The limited amending power of the Constitution was deemed a basic
characteristic by the court.