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

Introduction

The “Basic Structure” doctrine is an Indian judicial principle, propounded by Justice Hans Raj Khanna. It says that there are certain basic structure in the Constitution, which can’t be amended by the Parliament. The doctrine thus forms a basis of the power of the Supreme Court to struck down or to review the constitutional amendments and acts enacted by the Parliament, which affect or seek to alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy also come under the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

In the draft Constitution prepared by the Constitutional Adviser, Sir B. N. Rau, advised the division of individual rights into two categories. The rights which were enforceable by Court and the rights which were not enforceable by Court. The former was called Fundamental Rights and the latter was called Directive Principles of State Policy.

After discussion in Constituent Assembly, the final enactment of the Constitution contain Part III. As Fundamental Rights only and Directive Principles of State Policy were placed in Part IV separately.

The main reason behind the introduction of directive principles was to provide moral precepts to the authorities of the State. That is, social good in welfare State. On the other hand, the fundamental rights implement to assure citizens, political and civil freedom. It is by protecting against excessive State action. As both come under the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

Facts of the Case

The following are the facts of the case:

1. A Limited Co. (Petitioner No. 1) owned a textile venture, called Minerva Mills, which was situated in the State of Karnataka. This venture is nationalize by Central Government under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. Petitioner No. 2 to 6 are Petitioner 1’s shareholders. Out of them, some are secured creditors and some are unsecure creditors.
2. Respondent 1 is the Union of India and Respondent 2 is the National Textile Corporation Ltd. Under which the textile venture of Minerva Mills comes to be vested, as per Section 3(2) of the Nationalisation Act, 1974. Respondent 3 is Respondent 2’s subsidiary.
3. On August 20, 1970, the Central Government appointed a Committee under Section 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, to make a complete investigation regarding affairs of the Minerva Mills Ltd. As it was believe that there was or likely to be the substantial fall in the volume of production. The said Committee investigated and submitted it’s report to the Central Government, in January 1971. Based on the report, Central Government passed the order on October 19, 1971. Under Section 18 A of the Act of 1951. Authorizing Respondent 2 to take over the working of Minerva Mills Ltd. On the ground that its affairs were not being manage properly and they were detrimental to the public interest.
4. By the petitions, the Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42^nd Amendment) Act, 1976

Issues

1. Whether the amendments introduced by Section 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42^nd Amendment) Act, 1976 violates the basic structure of the Constitution?
2. Whether the Directive Principles of State Policy should be give primacy over the Fundamental Rights?

Analysis

1. There are inherent or implied limitations on the power of amendment. Therefore, Article 368 didn’t confer any power on Parliament to amend the Constitution. It is to destroy the essential basic features of the Constitution.
2. The basic structure of the Constitution rests on the foundation. That while Directive Principles are mandatory ends of government. But they can be only achieve through permissible means, enshrin in Part III of the Constitution.
3. If Article 31 C, as amend by the 42^nd Amendment is allowed to function. Then it’ll lead the legislature and executive, both, towards the path of an authoritarian regime.
4. Section 4 of the 42^nd Amendment has robbed the fundamental rights of citizens and made Parliament, a supreme power.
5. It is impossible to achieve the object of Directive Principles, we have to destruct Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III.
6. The Constitution of India is found on the bedrock of balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute supremacy to one over another, will disturb the harmony of the Constitution. This harmony and balance is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.
7. The consequence of giving immunity to laws enacted for one or more of the Directive Principles will result in wiping out of Articles 14 and 19 from the Constitution. Which will ultimately affect the basic structure of the Constitution.
8. The result of the exclusion of the power of judicial review, under Section 55 of the Constitution (42^nd Amendment) Act, 1976, which inserted Clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368 of the Constitution, which made a limitation on the amending power of Parliament non-existent, that is, Parliament’s amending power will stand enlarged.

Judgment

The Supreme Court by 4:1 majority struck down Sections 4 and 55 as amended by the 42^nd Amendment Act, 1976 as unconstitutional on the ground that it destroys “ the basic features” of the Constitution.

• The validity of Amendments in Article 368 of the Constitution of India

The Clauses (4) & (5) of Article 368 of the Indian Constitution were struck down, on the ground that limited amending power is a basic structure of the Constitution.

Parliament can’t have unlimited amending power to damage or destroy the Constitution, from which it owes it’s existence and also derive its power. The Parliament, who use to elect for every five years is meant for specific purposes. It can’t be vest with unlimit amending power. The Court, however, held that the doctrine of basic structure will be applied only in judging the validity of amendments to the Constitution and it does not apply for judging the validity of ordinary laws, made by the legislatures.

• Validity of Amendments to Article 31 C

The Court struck down the amended Article 31 – C (by 42^nd Amendment) as unconstitutional, as it destroys the “basic features” of the Constitution. The Court held that Article 31 – C was beyond the amending power of the Parliament and was void since it destroy the basic structure of the Constitution by total exclusion of challenge to any law on the ground that it was inconsistent with or took away any of the rights conferr by Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution.

It was further held that; the goals set out in Part IV have to be achieve without abrogation of rights provide under Part III. By the amendment introduced by Section 4 of the 42^nd Amendment, Articles 14 and 19 stand abrogated with regards to categories of law described in Article 31 – C. The Court held that the unamended Article 31 – C is valid, as it doesn’t violate any of the basic features of the Constitution. The unamended Article 31 – C gives protection to categories of laws specified in Articles 39(b) and (c). They are vital for people’s welfare and does not violate Articles 14 and 19.

Conclusion

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are the ‘conscience of our Constitution’. There’s no conflict between them. They meant to supplement each other. It’s the duty of both the governments, that is, the Central Government and the State Government to protect Fundamental Rights and implement Directive Principles. Because Fundamental Rights take a pride place, whereas, Directive Principles takes place of permanence, in our Constitution. They are two eyes of our Constitution.