Minerva Mills Case (1980)
– Restoration of Constitutional Balance
Background of the Case
During the Emergency period, Parliament enacted the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, often called the “Mini-Constitution”.
Two major changes were relevant here:
- Article 368
- Clauses (4) and (5) were inserted, stating that:
- No constitutional amendment can be questioned in any court
- There is no limitation on Parliament’s amending power
- Clauses (4) and (5) were inserted, stating that:
- Article 31C
- Its scope was expanded to give precedence to all Directive Principles
- Even over Articles 14, 19 and 31
These provisions were challenged in the Minerva Mills case.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Can Parliament give itself unlimited amending power?
- Can Directive Principles override Fundamental Rights completely?
- Is judicial review a basic feature of the Constitution?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court delivered a strong and corrective verdict.
(a) Striking Down Article 368(4) and (5)
The Court held that:
- Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 destroy the basic structure
- Limited amending power itself is a basic feature
Therefore:
Parliament cannot enlarge its amending power so as to destroy constitutional limitations.
Judicial review was reaffirmed as an essential element of the Constitution.
(b) Invalidating the Expanded Article 31C
The Court struck down the 42nd Amendment’s expansion of Article 31C.
It held that → Giving absolute primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights → Destroys the harmony and balance between Parts III and IV
This balance was declared to be part of the basic structure.
Key Basic Structure Elements Reaffirmed
The Court explicitly recognised the following as basic features:
- Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
- Judicial review
- Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Neutralised the Emergency-era attempt to establish parliamentary absolutism
- Reasserted constitutional supremacy
- Restored faith in the rule of law
- Strengthened democracy and judicial independence
Impact of the Judgement
- The 42nd Amendment’s assault on constitutional limits was defeated
- The Basic Structure doctrine was placed on a firm footing
- It ensured that → No organ of the State can become all-powerful
Place in Constitutional Evolution
| Case | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Doctrine created |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975) | Doctrine applied |
| 42nd Amendment (1976) | Doctrine challenged |
| Minerva Mills (1980) | Doctrine restored |
Summary
The Minerva Mills Case (1980) struck down the 42nd Amendment’s attempt to grant unlimited amending power to Parliament, reaffirmed judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as part of the basic structure.