Why this matters now
Minerva Mills is the strongest applied case-law on the Basic Structure doctrine (1973). It is the chief authority on (a) why constitutional amendments cannot be insulated from judicial review and (b) why FRs and DPSPs are complementary, not competitive.
Facts: a sick textile mill
Minerva Mills Ltd, a Karnataka textile company, was nationalised under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act 1974. After the 42nd Amendment (1976), the company challenged both the nationalisation Act AND the 42nd Amendment’s key provisions. Lead petitioner’s counsel: Nani Palkhivala — in what he called the most important argument of his career.
What was struck down — 42nd Amendment
The 5-judge bench (4:1) held two key portions of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional:
- Article 368 (4) and (5) — which had barred judicial review of constitutional amendments and given Parliament unlimited amending power. Struck down 4:1. “A limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore the limitations on that power cannot be destroyed.”
- Section 4 of 42nd Amendment — which amended Article 31C to give ALL Directive Principles primacy over Articles 14, 19 and 31. Struck down 4:1. “Harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.”
The post-42nd Article 31C now extends primacy only to laws giving effect to Articles 39(b) and (c) — the original 25th Amendment 1971 position is restored.
The 4:1 verdict
- Majority (Chandrachud CJI, Bhagwati, Gupta, Krishna Iyer): The limited amending power IS basic structure; FR-DPSP harmony IS basic structure.
- Dissent — Justice Bhagwati (separately, on different reasoning): agreed with the result on Article 368(4)/(5); dissented on Article 31C.
- The majority opinion was authored by CJI Y.V. Chandrachud.
Legacy
Minerva Mills remains the most cited basic-structure precedent. Together with Kesavananda Bharati it forms the constitutional bedrock against authoritarian amendments. The principles affirmed:
- Judicial review is itself basic structure.
- Parliamentary amending power is limited — cannot become unlimited.
- FRs and DPSPs are TWO WHEELS OF THE SAME CHARIOT — harmony, not subjugation.
UPSC angle
Know Minerva Mills v. Union of India 31 July 1980 — 5-judge bench 4:1; petitioner: Minerva Mills Karnataka textile nationalised under Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act 1974; lead counsel Nani Palkhivala; STRUCK DOWN (1) Article 368(4) & (5) added by 42nd Amendment (barring judicial review of amendments) — LIMITED AMENDING POWER IS BASIC STRUCTURE; (2) Section 4 of 42nd Amendment extending Article 31C to ALL DPSPs — FR-DPSP HARMONY IS BASIC STRUCTURE; majority Chandrachud CJI + Bhagwati + Gupta + Krishna Iyer; partial dissent Bhagwati on Art 31C only.
Frequently asked questions
What did Minerva Mills strike down?
Article 368 (4) and (5) and Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, holding that limited amending power and FR-DPSP harmony are part of basic structure.
Why is it called the “limited amending power” case?
Because the Court held that the LIMITS on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution are themselves part of basic structure and cannot be removed.
Are FRs and DPSPs in conflict?
Per Minerva Mills, they are “two wheels of the same chariot” — they must work harmoniously, not subjugate each other.
Who was the lead counsel?
Nani Palkhivala — who called it the most important argument of his career.