- CJI Y.V. ChandrachudFavored (Majority - Authored)
- Justice A.C. GuptaFavored (Majority)
- Justice N.L. UntwaliaFavored (Majority)
- Justice P.S. KailasamFavored (Majority)
- Justice P.N. BhagwatiOpposed (Dissenting - partly upheld amendment)
- Constitution of India (Articles 14, 19, 31C, 38, 39(b), 39(c), 368(4), 368(5))
- Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 (Sections 4 and 55)
- Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974
This case challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 4 amended Article 31C to give all Directive Principles (not just Articles 39(b) and (c)) primacy over Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19, and declared that laws giving effect to such DPSPs could not be questioned on grounds of violating Articles 14 or 19.
Section 55 amended Article 368 to explicitly state that (i) there was no limitation whatsoever on Parliament's constituent power to amend the Constitution (Clause 4), and (ii) no constitutional amendment could be questioned in any court on any ground (Clause 5). The petitioners argued these amendments destroyed the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner's Case (Minerva Mills / N.A. Palkhivala)
- Section 55 (amending Article 368) sought to confer unlimited amending power on Parliament and remove judicial review, directly violating the Basic Structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati.
- Limited amending power and judicial review are essential features of the Constitution.
- Section 4 (amending Article 31C) destroyed the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV), which is also a basic feature.
- Giving absolute primacy to all DPSPs over core Fundamental Rights (Articles 14 & 19) effectively abrogated those rights.
Respondent's Case (Union of India)
- Parliament, representing the will of the people, has supreme power to amend the Constitution as needed for socio-economic goals.
- The Basic Structure doctrine is ambiguous and should not impede Parliament's power.
- Directive Principles are crucial for social justice, and giving them primacy over certain Fundamental Rights is necessary for achieving the Constitution's welfare objectives.
- Article 31C (as amended) provides a necessary shield for progressive legislation. Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 were merely clarificatory of Parliament's plenary power.
Case Progression Timeline
Kesavananda Bharati Judgment
SC establishes the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's amending power.
April 24, 1973National Emergency
Period during which significant constitutional changes were pushed through.
June 1975 - March 197742nd Amendment Passed
Parliament passes the sweeping 42nd Amendment, including Sections 4 (amending Art 31C) and 55 (amending Art 368) to assert parliamentary supremacy.
Passed Nov 1976, Effective Jan/Apr 1977Emergency Lifted, New Government
Emergency ends, Janata Party comes to power, promising to review Emergency-era amendments.
March 1977Minerva Mills Case Filed
Petitions filed challenging the nationalisation of Minerva Mills and, more broadly, the validity of Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment.
~1977Supreme Court Judgment
By a 4:1 majority, SC strikes down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment as violating the Basic Structure.
July 31, 1980The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, delivered another landmark judgment strongly reaffirming the Basic Structure doctrine. The Court struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act as unconstitutional and void.
The majority held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is limited, not absolute. Clauses (4) and (5) inserted into Article 368 by Section 55 were declared void because they sought to remove these limitations and exclude judicial review, which are fundamental aspects of the Constitution's basic structure. Similarly, the amended Article 31C (via Section 4), which gave all Directive Principles precedence over Articles 14 and 19, was struck down as it destroyed the crucial harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, another essential feature of the basic structure.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
Chief Justice Chandrachud, writing for the majority, emphasized that the Constitution endowed Parliament with a limited amending power, and Parliament could not, through the exercise of that limited power, expand it into an absolute one. To allow clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 would be to allow Parliament to become the ultimate arbiter of its own amending power, destroying the Constitution's controlled system. Regarding Article 31C, the Court reasoned that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are complementary, forming the "conscience of the Constitution." While DPSPs are vital goals, achieving them cannot involve the wholesale abrogation of essential Fundamental Rights like equality (Article 14) and freedoms (Article 19). The amendment destroyed this balance. Justice Bhagwati, while dissenting on the striking down of the amended Article 31C (believing DPSPs could be given primacy), agreed with the majority that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 were unconstitutional as they violated the basic structure by seeking to eliminate limitations on amending power and excluding judicial review.
FINAL VERDICT
- Section 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, inserting Clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368, was declared unconstitutional and void as it damaged the basic structure by conferring unlimited amending power and excluding judicial review.
- Section 4 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, amending Article 31C to give primacy to all Directive Principles over Articles 14 and 19, was declared unconstitutional and void as it destroyed the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, a basic feature.
- Limited amending power of Parliament and judicial review are essential features of the Constitution's basic structure.
- The original (pre-42nd Amendment) version of Article 31C, giving primacy only to DPSPs under Art 39(b) and (c), remained valid (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati).
RATIO DECIDENDI
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is limited and does not extend to damaging or destroying the Constitution's basic structure. Limited amending power and judicial review are themselves essential features of the basic structure. The harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) is also a basic feature, and legislation giving absolute primacy to all DPSPs over Articles 14 and 19 violates this balance.