Minerva Mills case

Also called: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) · Topic: Amendment of the Constitution and the Basic Structure · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 9 "Constitution as a Living Document"

Meaning

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) is the Supreme Court case that struck down Art. 368(4) and (5) and the widened Art. 31C, all three added by the 42nd Amendment (1976). It held that three things are part of the basic structure (the core features of the Constitution that no amendment can destroy): a limited amending power, judicial review, and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

It matters because it was the Court's answer to Parliament's attempt to keep amendments out of the courts. It confirmed that Parliament is created by the Constitution and cannot rise above it.

Explanation

Background: why the case arose

• In Kesavananda Bharati (24 April 1973), the Court held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Art. 368, but it cannot destroy its basic structure.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) was the first case to use this doctrine to strike down part of an amendment.
• Parliament then hit back with the 42nd Amendment (1976):
• It tried to stop courts from examining amendments.
• It tried to make Parliament's amending power unlimited.

• It let all Directive Principles override key Fundamental Rights.

• The case:

• The petitioners challenged the 39th Amendment, which had placed their law in the Ninth Schedule (a list of laws protected from challenge for violating Fundamental Rights).

• They also challenged Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, which changed Art. 368 so that courts could not review amendments [3].

• Bench: 5 judges, led by CJI Y.V. Chandrachud [3].

• NCERT notes that the Court "again repeated its earlier stand".

Holding 1: Art. 368(4) and (5) struck down

• Art. 368(4) said no court could question a constitutional amendment.
• Art. 368(5) said there is "no limitation whatever" on Parliament's power to amend.
• The Court's reasoning: [3]
• A limited amending power is itself a basic feature.

• Parliament was given a limited power. It cannot use that power to make its own power unlimited.

• Judicial review (the courts' power to strike down laws and actions that break the Constitution) was again declared part of the basic structure. So shutting out the courts under Art. 368(4) could not stand.

Holding 2: the wider Art. 31C struck down

• Art. 31C protects laws that carry out certain Directive Principles from challenge under Art. 14 (equality) and Art. 19 (freedoms).
• How it changed over time:
• 25th Amendment (1971): it covered only Art. 39(b) and (c), that is, fair sharing of material resources and stopping wealth from piling up in a few hands.

• Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment (1976): it extended the cover to all Directive Principles in Part IV.

• The Court's reasoning:

• The harmony and balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles) is part of the basic structure.
• If all of Part IV could override Part III, that balance would be destroyed.
• So the extended Art. 31C was struck down.

The dissent and the limits of the ruling

• Justice P.N. Bhagwati partly dissented:
• He agreed that Art. 368(4) and (5) were invalid.

• But he would have upheld the extended Art. 31C.

• What the case did not do:

• It did not strike down the original Art. 31C (the 1971 version). That version was later upheld in Waman Rao (1981).
• It did not give a complete list of basic features. The Court has never given one, and courts decide case by case.

Provision added by 42nd Amendment (1976)	What it tried to do	Minerva Mills result
Art. 368(4)	Bar courts from questioning any amendment	Struck down: judicial review is basic
Art. 368(5)	Make Parliament's amending power unlimited	Struck down: a limited amending power is basic
Art. 31C (extended)	Let all Directive Principles override Arts. 14 and 19	Struck down: the Part III–Part IV balance is basic

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits:
• Art. 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. Clauses (4) and (5) were added by Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment (1976) and struck down in this case [3].
• Art. 31C was added by the 25th Amendment (1971) and widened by Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment (1976).

• The case is taught in NCERT Class 11, Ch 9 "Constitution as a Living Document".

• Who uses it: the Supreme Court and the High Courts, when they test whether an amendment damages the basic structure.

• How later cases built on it:
• Waman Rao (1981):
  • It fixed 24 April 1973 (the date of Kesavananda) as the cut-off date.
  • Ninth Schedule entries made on or after that date can be tested against the basic structure [3].
  • It upheld the unamended Art. 31C.
• S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987): judicial review is basic structure. Tribunals can replace the High Courts only if they are effective substitutes.
• S.R. Bommai (1994): a 9-judge bench repeated that judicial review is a basic feature [3].
• L. Chandra Kumar (1997): the High Courts' power of review under Arts. 226/227 and the Supreme Court's under Art. 32 is part of the inviolable basic structure [3].

• I.R. Coelho (11 January 2007):

  • Ninth Schedule laws added after 24 April 1973 get no blanket immunity [2].
  • The essence of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 is part of the basic structure [3].
  • This extends Minerva Mills' protection of Part III.

• Lasting effect:

• Parliament still amends the Constitution often. The latest amendment is the 106th Amendment Act, 2023 [4].
• But every amendment remains open to judicial review.

Don't confuse with

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Kesavananda created the basic structure doctrine. Minerva Mills used it to strike down the 42nd Amendment's attempt to shut out the courts.
• Waman Rao (1981): Waman Rao set the 24 April 1973 cut-off and upheld the original Art. 31C, which covered only Art. 39(b) and (c). Minerva Mills struck down only the widened Art. 31C, which covered all Directive Principles.
• I.R. Coelho (2007): Coelho was a 9-judge bench led by CJI Y.K. Sabharwal, and it dealt with the Ninth Schedule under Art. 31B. Minerva Mills was a 5-judge bench led by CJI Y.V. Chandrachud, and it dealt with Art. 368(4)-(5) and Art. 31C.
• Original Art. 31C vs extended Art. 31C: the 1971 version (25th Amendment) survives. The 1976 extension (42nd Amendment) was struck down.

Prelims Hooks

• Minerva Mills (1980) struck down Art. 368(4) and (5). Both were added by the 42nd Amendment (1976) [3].
• Bench: 5 judges, led by CJI Y.V. Chandrachud. Justice P.N. Bhagwati partly dissented, only on the extended Art. 31C.
• Basic features named in Minerva Mills: limited amending power, judicial review, and the harmony of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
• Trap: the original Art. 31C (25th Amendment, 1971), which covered Art. 39(b) and (c), was not struck down. It was upheld in Waman Rao (1981).
• Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment extended Art. 31C. Section 55 amended Art. 368 [3].
• Match the case to the cut-off: the 24 April 1973 cut-off comes from Waman Rao (1981), not Minerva Mills.

Mains Points

• Limited amending power as a safeguard:
• A body with limited power cannot make its own power unlimited.
• This keeps the Constitution supreme above Parliament.

• The 42nd Amendment's attempt to bar the courts shows why this check is needed.

• Balance of rights and directives:

• Directive Principles guide social justice, but they cannot wipe out Fundamental Rights.
• Minerva Mills calls the two "two wheels of a chariot".

• Use this in answers on the conflict between Part III and Part IV, and on land reform.

• Democracy vs judicial supremacy:

• Critics say unelected judges now decide what counts as basic structure, and the list keeps changing (from Kesavananda to NJAC, 2015).
• Supporters say this protects core values against a passing majority.
• The middle path is case-by-case reasoning with judicial restraint.

Related concepts

• Waman Rao case
• I.R. Coelho case
• Elements of the basic structure

Read more

• Consolidating the doctrine: Minerva Mills to I.R. Coelho