Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provisions of 42nd Constitutional Amendment, Upholds Basic Structure Doctrine

Landmark Minerva Mills judgment declares Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional for violating the Constitution’s basic structure and reaffirms the supremacy of Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles.

In a historic judgment delivered on May 9, 1980, the Supreme Court of India (Large Bench) in the Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India case decisively struck down critical provisions of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, holding that they were beyond the amending power of Parliament under Article 368 and violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment reaffirmed the inviolability of the basic structure doctrine first propounded in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), thereby placing substantive limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

The case arose from constitutional challenges by Minerva Mills Ltd. and others against the validity of Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment. Section 4 amended Article 31C of the Constitution to accord primacy to the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) over certain Fundamental Rights (Part III), specifically Articles 14 and 19, by immunizing laws giving effect to any Directive Principle from being declared void on the ground that they abridge these Fundamental Rights. Section 55 introduced clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368, which purported to exclude any constitutional amendment from judicial review and remove all limitations on Parliament’s amending power.

The Supreme Court, by majority, declared Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional as it destroyed the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles—an essential feature of the Constitution’s basic structure. The Court held that Fundamental Rights, particularly the right to equality (Article 14) and freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), are integral to the identity of the Constitution and cannot be rendered subservient permanently to Directive Principles, which are non-justiciable and serve as guiding principles for governance.

Section 55’s clauses (4) and (5) were also struck down for attempting to confer unlimited amending power on Parliament and barring judicial review of constitutional amendments—actions that would effectively allow Parliament to alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure with impunity. The Court emphasized that judicial review and the limited nature of Parliament’s amending power are themselves essential features of the basic structure, without which the constitutional framework would collapse.

The judgment elaborately traced the historical, philosophical, and constitutional significance of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. It acknowledged that while Directive Principles aim to achieve socio-economic justice and are fundamental in governance, they are not superior to Fundamental Rights. Both Parts III and IV of the Constitution constitute the conscience of the Constitution and must co-exist in harmony.

The Court clarified that the amended Article 31C, as introduced by the 42nd Amendment, could not be interpreted to confer blanket immunity to all laws purportedly enacted to implement Directive Principles. Judicial scrutiny remains vital to determine whether a law genuinely gives effect to a Directive Principle and whether any encroachment on Fundamental Rights is reasonable and does not destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.

The judgment also examined other related issues such as the validity of the inclusion of laws in the Ninth Schedule, the powers of judicial review over proclamations of emergency, and the constitutional validity of various other amendments. It reaffirmed that the power of amendment under Article 368 is broad but limited by the requirement that the basic structure or framework of the Constitution must be preserved.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Minerva Mills Ltd. thus stands as a bulwark protecting the Constitution’s core features—sovereignty, democracy, secularism, separation of powers, fundamental rights, and judicial review—against potential erosion by parliamentary overreach.

Petitions in the case were allowed, with no order as to costs.

Statutory provisions

Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 Sections 4, 55; Constitution of India Articles 14, 19, 31C, 31A, 31B, 32, 37, 38, 39, 44, 83, 83(2), 83(2) proviso, 352(1), 352(2), 352(3), 352(4), 352(5), 368, 368(4), 368(5)

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 104608