Amending power & basic structure
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 1980 · AIR 1980 SC 1789; (1980) 3 SCC 625
This case reaffirmed that even Parliament cannot change the Constitution's core identity, no matter how large a majority backs an amendment. It struck down attempts by Parliament, made during the Emergency era, to make itself all-powerful and to shield laws from court review just because they claimed to promote welfare goals. As a result, ordinary citizens retained the right to approach courts if their fundamental rights were violated, even when a law claimed to serve directive principles of state policy.
The story
In the aftermath of the Emergency, Parliament had passed the 42nd Amendment, arming itself with near-unlimited power to rewrite the Constitution and declaring that courts could not question such changes. It also decreed that laws implementing any Directive Principle would automatically override Fundamental Rights. When Minerva Mills, a textile company nationalised by the government, challenged its takeover, the case became a vehicle for a far bigger battle: could an elected majority permanently disable the judiciary and erase the rights of citizens by amending the Constitution itself? The Supreme Court, drawing on the basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati, said no. It held that Parliament's power to amend was always meant to be limited, and that limitation was itself untouchable - a constitutional safeguard against future majorities turning tyrannical. The Court restored the judiciary's power to review amendments and reinstated the requirement that laws under Article 31C could only override rights when tied to the specific welfare goals in Article 39(b) and (c), not all directive principles at large. The ruling protected the delicate balance between individual liberty and collective welfare, ensuring no single organ of the state - however popularly elected - could become absolute.
The facts
Minerva Mills, a textile company in Karnataka, was nationalised under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, and the company's owners challenged this takeover. In the same proceedings, they challenged Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, which had amended Article 368 to give Parliament unlimited amending power free from judicial review, and had amended Article 31C to give overriding primacy to all Directive Principles (Part IV) over Fundamental Rights (Part III). The challenge invoked the basic structure doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
The question before the court
Whether Parliament, acting under its amending power in Article 368, could amend the Constitution so as to remove all limitations on that very power and to make all Directive Principles override all Fundamental Rights, without violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
The holding
The Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 (as inserted by the 42nd Amendment), which purported to give Parliament unlimited constituent power and to exclude judicial review of constitutional amendments, holding that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be enlarged into an unlimited power by using that very power. The Court also struck down the amendment to Article 31C insofar as it extended primacy to all Directive Principles over all Fundamental Rights (rather than only Articles 39(b) and (c) as originally provided), holding that the harmonious balance between Parts III and IV is itself part of the basic structure and cannot be disturbed. Judicial review was reaffirmed as an essential and non-amendable feature of the Constitution.
The principle it stands for
A limited amending power under Article 368 is a basic feature of the Constitution; Parliament cannot use this limited power to confer upon itself an unlimited power to amend, since doing so would destroy the very identity of the Constitution as one of limited powers. The harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV), along with the availability of judicial review, are themselves part of the basic structure and cannot be abrogated even by constitutional amendment.
Provisions this case shaped
- Art. 14Equality before lawupheld — Reaffirmed protection of equality against total subordination to Directive Principles.
- Art. 19Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etcupheld — Reaffirmed protection of fundamental freedoms against unchecked legislative override.
- Art. 368Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure thereforlimited — Clauses (4) and (5) giving Parliament unlimited amending power and ousting judicial review were struck down.
- Art. 13Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rightsupheld — Reaffirmed that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
- Art. 32Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Partupheld — Judicial review via constitutional remedies reaffirmed as part of the basic structure.
AI-assisted summary from public records. Read the full judgment on Indian Kanoon.