Minerva Mill v. Union of India (1980)

In this case of Minerva Mill vs. Union of India, the validity of 42nd amendment Act was challenged on the ground that they are destructive of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. The Supreme Court by majority by 4 to 1 struck down clauses (4) and (5) of the article 368 inserted by 42nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution, on the opinion that these clauses smashed the essential aspect of the basic structure of the constitution.
It was ruled by the court that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution. This Judgment laid down that: The amendment made to Article 31C by the 42nd Amendment is invalid because it damaged the essential features of the Constitution. Clauses (4) and (5) are invalid on the ground that they violate two basic features of the Constitution:
Limited nature of the power to amend
Judicial review
The courts cannot be deprived of their power of judicial review. The procedure prescribed by Clause (2) is obligatory. The Judgment of the Supreme Court thus makes it clear that the Constitution is Supreme not the Parliament. Parliament cannot have unlimited amending power so as to damage or destroy the Constitution to which it owes its existence and also derives its power.
The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles are required to be viewed as the two sides of the same coin. Both should be complementary to each other and there should be no confrontation between them. Undoubtedly, Part IV is a part of the Constitution.
Any importance on the Directive Principles alone, in total disregard of the rights and liberties, may lead to absolutism. Hence a harmonious balance should be maintained between Part III and Part IV of the Constitution and real blend should come out only from harmonizing the spirit of political democracy with the spirit of economic democracy.
BY: DEVIKA SHARMA