Minerva Mills v. Union of India
| Minerva Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Full case name | Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs Union Of India and Ors. |
| Decided | 31 July 1980 |
| Citation(s) | AIR 1980 SC 1789 |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Chandrachud Y.V. (CJ); Gupta, A.C.; Untwalia, N.L.; Kailasam, P.S. |
| Dissent | Bhagwati, P.N. |
| Laws applied | |
| Constitution of India | |
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India.
In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The court unanimously ruled that the power of the Parliament of India to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself an unlimited power. In addition, a majority of the court also held that the parliament's power to amend is not a power to destroy. Hence the parliament cannot emasculate the fundamental rights of individuals, including the right to liberty and equality.
The ruling struck down section 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court declared sections 4 & 55 of the 42nd amendment as unconstitutional.
Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, had added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368 of the Constitution which read:
(4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have been made under this article whether before or after the commencement of section 55 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 shall be called in question in any court on any ground.
(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this article.
The above clauses were unanimously ruled as unconstitutional. Chief Justice Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud explained in his opinion that since, as had been previously held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the power of Parliament to amend the constitution was limited, it could not by amending the constitution convert this limited power into an unlimited power (as it had purported to do by the 42nd amendment).
...
Wikipedia