LexMINERVA MILLS LTD. & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 206 MINERVA MILLS· I:.TD. & ORS,, v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. July 31, 1980 [Y. v. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., P. N. BHAGWATI, A. c. GUPTA, N. L- UNTWALIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] Constttution of India Forty Second Amendment Act, Sections 4 and 55- Whether the Sections are beyond' t/ie amending· power of' the· Parliament under· Article 368 of the Constitution and· therefore void-Whether the Directive Pri11- ciples of State policy contai11ed in Part iv· of the ConJtitutio11 ca11 have primacy over the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Co11stitution-Consti- · tutio11 of India A.rtlcles 14, 19, 31C, 38 and 368: Minerva Mills Ltd. is a limited company dealing in textiles. On August 20, 1970 the Central Government appointed a committee under section 15 0r- the Industries (Development Regufation) Act, 1951' to make a fiill and complete-- investigation of the affairs of the Minerva Mills Ltd. as it was of the opinion that there had been or was likely to be substantial' fall' in the ·volume of pro-- duction·. The said Committee submitted its report to the Central Goverament in January 1971, on the basis of which the Central Government passed an order dated October 19, 1971 under section 18A of the 1951' Act, authorising_c the National Textile Corporation Ltd., to take over the management of the Mills on the ground that its affairs are being managed iii a· manner highly detri- mental to public interest. This undertaking was nationalised and taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of the Sfck Textile Under- takings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974'. The petitioners challenged the constitu- tional validity of certain provisions of the· Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationa- lisation) Act, 1974 and o,f the· order dated O~tober 19, 1971, the constitutionality-- of the Constitution (Thirty Ninth Amen~ment) Act which inserted the impugn- ed Nationalisation Act as Entry 105 in. the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, the validity of Article 31B of the Constitution and finally the constitutionality-- of sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976. on the ratio of the majority judgment in Kesavananda Bharati's case, namely, though by Article 368 of the Constitution Parliament is given the power to· amend the Constitution, that power cannot be exercised SQ as to damage the .. basic features of the Constitution or so as to destroy its basic structure. Opining that sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amend- ment) Act are void and beyond the amending power of the Parliament the· Court by majority (Per Chandrachud. C.J .. on behalf of himself, A. C. Gupta. N. L. Untwalia & P. S. Kailasam, JJ.)· · HELD: (1) The newly introduced clause 5 of' Article 368 transgresses" , the limitations on the amending power of Parliament and· is hence unconstitu- ·~ tional. It demolishes the very pillars on which the preamble rests by ~mpower- ing the Parliament to exercise its constituent power without any "limitation what-- ever". No constituent power can conceivably go higher than the sky-high power conferred by clause (5), for it even empowers the Parliament to "repeal" the provisions of this Constitution", t!iat' is· to· say, to' abrogate· the democracr .1 MINERVA MILLS LTD. V. UNION 207 ·,and substitute for it a totally antithetical form of Government. That can most A ·<effectively be achieved, with out calling a democracy hy. any other name, by a ·iota! denial of social, economic and political· justice to ihe people, by emascu- lating liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship and by abjuring -commitment to the magnificient ideal of a society of equals. The power to -<destroy is not a power to amend. [240C-E] Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power B -enlarge that very power into an absolute, power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of Indian Constitution and therefore, the· ·Jimitations on that power cannot be destroyed. In other words, Parliament -cannot, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as lei 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. [240E-G] C Smt. Indira Nehr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.