______________________________________________

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (PSDA)

Case: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789)

Introduction:
The case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India stands as a landmark case in
Indian constitutional jurisprudence, marking it a pivotal moment in the
struggle to preserve the integrity of the Constitution and the principle of
judicial review, a critical examination of the limits of parliamentary authority
vis-à-vis the doctrine of basic structure concerning judicial review and
harmonizing Fundamental Rights and State Policy Directive Principles. This
Case made three amendments unconstitutional and null, including the 42nd
Constitutional Amendment Act 1976. This case comment delves into the
facts, issues, contentions of the parties, Obiter Dicta, Ratio Decidendi and
concluding remarks of this significant case.

Facts:
 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 skeptical that the corporation met the requirements
for being labeled as a sick industry. As a result, the Central Government
 constituted a committee 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”

Issues:
There were notably 2 issues of law in this case:
1. The validity of provisions of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment)
Act, 1976.
2. Whether Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is
unlimited or subject to judicial review.

Contentions of the Parties:

- Petitioners (Minerva Mills Ltd. and others): Argued that certain
provisions of the 42nd Amendment Act, such as changes to Articles 31C,
368, and the Ninth Schedule, violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
They contended that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not
unlimited and cannot be used to destroy or damage its basic structure.
- Respondents (Union of India and others): Defended the validity of the
42nd Amendment Act, asserting Parliament's plenary powers under Article
368. They argued that the judiciary should not interfere with legislative
enactments and that the amendment was necessary for achieving socio-
economic objectives.

Obiter Dicta:
In its judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the Constitution is a living
document, embodying the aspirations of the people, and that its basic
structure must be preserved at all costs. It emphasized the essential nature of
judicial review as a cornerstone of India's constitutional framework,
highlighting the judiciary's duty to uphold the Constitution's supremacy and
protect citizens' rights. Additionally, the court reiterated the significance of
the basic structure doctrine, affirming that certain fundamental features of the
Constitution are beyond the scope of parliamentary amendment. These
incidental remarks served to reinforce the judiciary's role as a guardian of
constitutional principles and the rule of law, providing guidance for future
cases and ensuring the enduring integrity of India's constitutional order.

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

1. Amendments to Article 368: The 42nd Amendment Act altered Article 368
of the Constitution, which deals with the procedure for amending the
Constitution. The amendments sought to enhance Parliament's authority to
amend the Constitution without any substantive limitations.
2. Amendments to Article 31C: The 42nd Amendment Act introduced
changes to Article 31C, which pertains to the directive principles of state
policy. These amendments sought to immunize certain laws from judicial
review on the grounds that they were enacted to implement the directive
principles relating to the distribution of ownership and control of material
resources.

3. Amendments affecting the Ninth Schedule: The Ninth Schedule of the

Indian Constitution was amended to include certain laws that were immune
from judicial review. These laws were shielded from constitutional scrutiny
under the premise that they were intended to implement socioeconomic
reforms.

Concluding Remark:
The Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India case stands as a pivotal milestone
in Indian constitutional law, marking a profound assertion of judicial
authority and the foundational principles enshrined in the Constitution. By
striking down provisions of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act,
1976, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine of basic structure,
establishing vital limitations on parliamentary power. This landmark decision
underscores the judiciary's role as a guardian of constitutional integrity and
ensures the protection of fundamental rights and democratic principles. Its
significance reverberates through subsequent jurisprudence, guiding future
generations in the preservation of constitutional values and the maintenance
of democratic order.

______________________________________________
Name - Prerna Sharma
Class - 2 A
Enroll no - 01417703823