Minerva Mills ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
AIR 1980 SC 1789
Case Summary
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.
Issue
The following are the case’s significant issues:
i) Is the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act of 1976, Sections 4 and 5, constitutional?
ii) Is Article 368’s clauses 4 and 5 constitutionally valid?
Relevant Articles
Article 13 - Laws inconsistent with or in violation of fundamental rights.
Article 368(3) - Nothing in Article 13 of the Constitution applies to any amendment made under Article 368.
Article 368(4) - No amendment to the Constitution can be called into question in court on any ground.
Judgement
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.
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.
Comments