Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
Clauses (4) and (5) of Art 368 are void as they confer unlimited amending power and exclude judicial review, both contrary to the basic structure.
Facts
The 42nd Amendment inserted Art 368(4) and (5) declaring that no amendment could be questioned in any court and that there was no limit on Parliament's constituent power. It also widened Art 31C to immunise laws giving effect to any Directive Principle. A sick textile undertaking taken over under nationalisation law challenged these provisions.
Issues
- Whether Art 368(4) and (5) excluding judicial review of amendments are valid
- Whether the amended Art 31C destroys the balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles
Arguments
The petitioners argued the clauses gave Parliament unlimited power to destroy the Constitution and abolished judicial review, both basic features. The Union argued the clauses merely affirmed the plenary constituent power and the primacy of Directive Principles.
Held
By a 4:1 majority the Court struck down Art 368(4) and (5), holding that the limited nature of the amending power and judicial review are themselves basic features which Parliament cannot enlarge or abolish. Parliament cannot convert a limited power into an unlimited one. The majority also struck down the widened Art 31C, holding the balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure. Bhagwati J dissented on Art 31C.
Ratio decidendi
The limited nature of the amending power and judicial review are basic features; the balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles cannot be destroyed by amendment.
Significance
Reaffirmed and entrenched Kesavananda, making clear Parliament cannot grant itself unlimited amending power. It identified the limited amending power, judicial review and the FR-DPSP balance as basic features, and remains a cornerstone of the doctrine.
Related
Test yourself on Constitution of India. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.
Take a subject test →