What specific aspects of the 42nd Amendment did Minerva Mills strike down?
Of course. Here is a detailed answer to your question, structured for a UPSC aspirant.
Direct Answer
The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1980), struck down two specific provisions that were inserted into the Constitution by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.
The two invalidated provisions were:
-
Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act: This section amended Article 31C of the Constitution. The amendment gave primacy to all Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in Part IV over the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (Right to Freedom). The Court struck this down, holding that it disturbed the "basic structure" of the Constitution by destroying the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.
-
Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act: This section added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368, which deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
- Clause (4) stated that no constitutional amendment could be questioned in any court on any ground.
- Clause (5) declared that there shall be no limitation whatsoever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
The Supreme Court invalidated these clauses, ruling that they sought to remove all limitations on Parliament's amending power and, crucially, sought to eliminate Judicial Review, which is itself a fundamental component of the Constitution's "basic structure."
Historical Context
To understand the Minerva Mills judgment, we must trace the preceding constitutional developments. This period was marked by a significant power struggle between the Parliament and the Judiciary over the scope of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, particularly concerning Fundamental Rights.
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights (Part III).
- 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971): To overcome the Golaknath ruling, Parliament passed this amendment, which added clauses to Article 13 and Article 368 to explicitly grant itself the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This pivotal judgment upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment but introduced the Doctrine of Basic Structure. The Court held that while Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, it could not alter its "basic structure" or framework.
- The Emergency (1975-1977): During the Internal Emergency, the government sought to establish parliamentary supremacy.
- 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1976): Often called the "mini-constitution," this extensive amendment was passed during the Emergency. Its key objectives were to assert parliamentary sovereignty, give primacy to DPSPs over Fundamental Rights, and curtail the power of the judiciary. The provisions struck down in Minerva Mills were the most direct expressions of this objective.
Significance
The Minerva Mills judgment is profoundly significant for Indian constitutionalism for several reasons:
- Reaffirmation of the Basic Structure Doctrine: It cemented the doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati as the ultimate check on Parliament's amending power.
- Judicial Review as a Basic Feature: The Court explicitly declared that the power of judicial review is a core component of the basic structure and cannot be abrogated by a constitutional amendment.
- Harmony between FRs and DPSPs: The judgment established the principle of "harmony and balance" between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV). The Court described them as "two wheels of a chariot," one being no less important than the other. It held that giving absolute primacy to one over the other would destroy the essential balance of the Constitution.
The table below compares the constitutional position before and after the Minerva Mills judgment regarding the invalidated provisions.
| Provision | Position after 42nd Amendment (1976) | Position after Minerva Mills Judgment (1980) |
|---|---|---|
| Article 31C | All DPSPs (Part IV) were given primacy over Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19. | The pre-1976 position was restored. Only laws implementing DPSPs under Article 39(b) and 39(c) have protection from challenges under Articles 14 and 19. The extension to all DPSPs was declared unconstitutional. |
| Article 368 | Clauses (4) and (5) were added, making Parliament's amending power absolute and placing constitutional amendments beyond judicial review. | Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 were struck down as unconstitutional. Parliament's amending power remains limited by the basic structure doctrine, and judicial review of constitutional amendments was reaffirmed. |
UPSC Angle
For the UPSC Civil Services Examination, examiners expect candidates to demonstrate a nuanced understanding of this topic beyond mere facts.
- Conceptual Clarity: You must clearly articulate the Doctrine of Basic Structure and the principle of Harmony and Balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. Simply stating which sections were struck down is insufficient.
- Evolution of the Constitution: This topic is a classic example of the "living" nature of the Constitution. Your answer should reflect an understanding of the tug-of-war between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review, placing Minerva Mills within the timeline of Golaknath, the 24th Amendment, and Kesavananda Bharati.
- Linkage between Topics: Connect this judgment to multiple syllabus areas: Fundamental Rights (Chapter on FRs vs. DPSPs), the Amendment of the Constitution (Article 368), and the Judiciary (Judicial Review).
- Analysis, not just Description: In Mains answers, go beyond what happened and explain why it was significant. For instance, explain how the judgment preserved the core of Indian democracy by preventing a slide into parliamentary absolutism and protecting the rights of the individual. The Court's reasoning—that a limited amending power is a basic feature, and Parliament cannot use this limited power to make it unlimited—is a key analytical point.