Minerva Mills v. Union of India - Revision history

->Citation bot: Alter: url. URLs might have been anonymized. Add: journal. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | #UCB_webform 669/2200

2021-12-12T17:34:00Z

Alter: url. URLs might have been anonymized. Add: journal. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | #UCB_webform 669/2200

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:04, 12 December 2021
Line 30:		Line 30:
	}}		}}

	'''''Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors.''''' (case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 356 of 1977; case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789)<ref>{{Cite web\|title=Judgement Copy\|url=https://article51a.in/wp-content/uploads/Minerva-Mills-Vs-Union-of-India.pdf\|url-status=live\|website=Article 51A}}</ref> is a [[landmark decision]] of the [[Supreme Court of India]]<ref name=ik-1939993>{{cite web\|url=http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/\|title=Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union Of India and Ors.\|publisher=Indian Kanoon\|access-date=2012-07-17}}</ref> that applied and evolved the [[basic structure doctrine]] of the [[Constitution of India]].<ref name=ssrn-minerva-mills>{{cite journal\|ssrn=1121817\|title=Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors: A Jurisprudential Perspective\|author=Raghav Sharma\|publisher=Social Science Research Network\|date=2008-04-16}}</ref>		'''''Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors.''''' (case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 356 of 1977; case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789)<ref>{{Cite web\|title=Judgement Copy\|url=https://article51a.in/wp-content/uploads/Minerva-Mills-Vs-Union-of-India.pdf\|url-status=live\|website=Article 51A}}</ref> is a [[List of landmark court decisions in India\|landmark decision]] of the [[Supreme Court of India]]<ref name=ik-1939993>{{cite web\|url=http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/\|title=Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union Of India and Ors.\|publisher=Indian Kanoon\|access-date=2012-07-17}}</ref> that applied and evolved the [[basic structure doctrine]] of the [[Constitution of India]].<ref name=ssrn-minerva-mills>{{cite journal\|ssrn=1121817\|title=Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors: A Jurisprudential Perspective\|author=Raghav Sharma\|publisher=Social Science Research Network\|date=2008-04-16}}</ref>

	In the ''Minerva Mills'' case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The court ruled that the power of the [[Parliament of India\|parliament]] 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, and also includes the right to liberty and equality (which is not a fundamental right but considered a basic structure of the Constitution) .<ref name=oa-4488>{{cite web\|url=http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm \|title=Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. \|publisher=Open Archive \|access-date=2012-07-17 \|url-status=dead \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120404195325/http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm \|archive-date=2012-04-04 }}</ref>		In the ''Minerva Mills'' case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The court ruled that the power of the [[Parliament of India\|parliament]] 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, and also includes the right to liberty and equality (which is not a fundamental right but considered a basic structure of the Constitution) .<ref name=oa-4488>{{cite web\|url=http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm \|title=Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. \|publisher=Open Archive \|access-date=2012-07-17 \|url-status=dead \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120404195325/http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm \|archive-date=2012-04-04 }}</ref>

	The ruling struck down ~~article~~ 4 and 55 of the [[Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976]] enacted during the [[Emergency (India)\|Emergency]] imposed by Prime Minister [[Indira Gandhi]].<ref name="Hart">{{cite journal \| last = Hart \| first = Henry C. \| title = The Indian Constitution: Political Development and Decay \| ~~work~~ = Asia Survey, Vol. 20, No. 4, Apr., 1980 \| publisher = University of California Press \| date = April 1980 \| jstor = i345360 }}</ref>		The ruling struck down clause 4 and 5 of the [[Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976]] enacted during the [[Emergency (India)\|Emergency]] imposed by Prime Minister [[Indira Gandhi]].<ref name="Hart">{{cite journal \| last = Hart \| first = Henry C. \| title = The Indian Constitution: Political Development and Decay \| journal = Asia Survey, Vol. 20, No. 4, Apr., 1980 \| publisher = University of California Press \| date = April 1980 \| jstor = i345360 }}</ref>

	==Judgement==		==Judgement==
Line 45:		Line 45:
	The above clauses were unanimously ruled as unconstitutional. Chief Justice [[Y. V. 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).		The above clauses were unanimously ruled as unconstitutional. Chief Justice [[Y. V. 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).

	{{quotation\|Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed. In other words, Parliament can not, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features. The donee of a limited power cannot by the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one.<ref name = "Constitution Amendment in India">{{cite book\|title=Constitution Amendment in India\|date=1 January 1995\|publisher=Northern Book Centre\|location=New Delhi\|pages=12\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4yp0yhzdKWIC~~&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false~~\|edition=Sixth\|editor=R.C. Bhardwaj\|access-date=25 November 2013\|isbn=9788172110659}}</ref>}}		{{quotation\|Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed. In other words, Parliament can not, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features. The donee of a limited power cannot by the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one.<ref name = "Constitution Amendment in India">{{cite book\|title=Constitution Amendment in India\|date=1 January 1995\|publisher=Northern Book Centre\|location=New Delhi\|pages=12\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4yp0yhzdKWIC\|edition=Sixth\|editor=R.C. Bhardwaj\|access-date=25 November 2013\|isbn=9788172110659}}</ref>}}

	Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, had amended Article 31C of the Constitution to accord precedence to the [[Directive Principles in India\|Directive Principles of State Policy]] articulated in Part IV of the Constitution over the [[Fundamental Rights in India\|Fundamental Rights]] of individuals articulated in Part III of Indian Constitution. By a verdict of 4-1, with Justice [[P. N. Bhagwati]] dissenting, the court held section 4 of the 42nd Amendment to be unconstitutional.<ref name=ssrn-minerva-mills/> Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote:		Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, had amended Article 31C of the Constitution to accord precedence to the [[Directive Principles in India\|Directive Principles of State Policy]] articulated in Part IV of the Constitution over the [[Fundamental Rights in India\|Fundamental Rights]] of individuals articulated in Part III of Indian Constitution. By a verdict of 4-1, with Justice [[P. N. Bhagwati]] dissenting, the court held section 4 of the 42nd Amendment to be unconstitutional.<ref name=ssrn-minerva-mills/> Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote:

imported>Chaotic dood at 16:33, 8 August 2021

2021-08-08T16:33:42Z

New page

{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2019}}
{{Use Indian English|date=September 2019}}
{{Infobox court case
|name = Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union Of India
|court = [[Supreme Court of India]]
|image =
|imagesize =
|imagelink =
|imagealt =
|caption =
|full name = Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs Union Of India and Ors.
|date decided = 31 July 1980
|citations = AIR 1980 SC 1789
|ECLI =
|transcripts =
|judges = Y. V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice), P. N. Bhagwati, A. C. Gupta, N. L. Untwalia, P. S. Kailasam.
|number of judges = 5
|decision by = [[Y. V. Chandrachud]] (Chief Justice)
|concurring =
|dissenting =
|concur/dissent = [[P. N. Bhagwati]]
|prior actions =
|appealed from =
|appealed to =
|subsequent actions =
|related actions =
|opinions = Clause 5 of Article 368 transgresses the limitation on the amending power of Parliament and is hence unconstitutional.
|keywords = 
|italic title =
}}

'''''Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors.''''' (case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 356 of 1977; case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Judgement Copy|url=https://article51a.in/wp-content/uploads/Minerva-Mills-Vs-Union-of-India.pdf|url-status=live|website=Article 51A}}</ref> is a [[landmark decision]] of the [[Supreme Court of India]]<ref name=ik-1939993>{{cite web|url=http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/|title=Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union Of India and Ors.|publisher=Indian Kanoon|access-date=2012-07-17}}</ref> that applied and evolved the [[basic structure doctrine]] of the [[Constitution of India]].<ref name=ssrn-minerva-mills>{{cite journal|ssrn=1121817|title=Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors: A Jurisprudential Perspective|author=Raghav Sharma|publisher=Social Science Research Network|date=2008-04-16}}</ref>

In the ''Minerva Mills'' case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The court ruled that the power of the [[Parliament of India|parliament]] 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, and also includes the right to liberty and equality (which is not a fundamental right but considered a basic structure of the Constitution) .<ref name=oa-4488>{{cite web|url=http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm |title=Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. |publisher=Open Archive |access-date=2012-07-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120404195325/http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm |archive-date=2012-04-04 }}</ref>

The ruling struck down article 4 and 55 of the [[Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976]] enacted during the [[Emergency (India)|Emergency]] imposed by Prime Minister [[Indira Gandhi]].<ref name="Hart">{{cite journal | last = Hart | first = Henry C. | title = The Indian Constitution: Political Development and Decay | work = Asia Survey, Vol. 20, No. 4, Apr., 1980 | publisher = University of California Press | date = April 1980 | jstor = i345360 }}</ref>

==Judgement==

'''(5)''' For the removal of easy 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 [[Y. V. 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).

{{quotation|Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed. In other words, Parliament can not, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features. The donee of a limited power cannot by the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one.<ref name = "Constitution Amendment in India">{{cite book|title=Constitution Amendment in India|date=1 January 1995|publisher=Northern Book Centre|location=New Delhi|pages=12|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4yp0yhzdKWIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false|edition=Sixth|editor=R.C. Bhardwaj|access-date=25 November 2013|isbn=9788172110659}}</ref>}}

Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, had amended Article 31C of the Constitution to accord precedence to the [[Directive Principles in India|Directive Principles of State Policy]] articulated in Part IV of the Constitution over the [[Fundamental Rights in India|Fundamental Rights]] of individuals articulated in Part III of Indian Constitution. By a verdict of 4-1, with Justice [[P. N. Bhagwati]] dissenting, the court held section 4 of the 42nd Amendment to be unconstitutional.<ref name=ssrn-minerva-mills/> Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote:

{{quotation|Three Articles of our Constitution, and only three, stand between the heaven of freedom into which Tagore wanted his country to awake and the abyss of unrestrained power. They are Articles 14, 19 and 21. Article 31C has removed two sides of that golden triangle which affords to the people of this country an assurance that the promise held forth by the preamble will be performed by ushering an egalitarian era through the discipline of fundamental rights, that is, without emasculation of the rights to liberty and equality which alone can help preserve the dignity of the individual.<ref name=oa-4488/>}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Indian constitutional case law]]
[[Category:1980 in case law]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of India cases]]
[[Category:1980 in India]]
[[Category:The Emergency (India)]]