Minerva Mills Case and Limits on Amending Power

Minerva Mills case (1980) is the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Parliament's attempt to grant itself unlimited power to amend the Constitution, holding that a limited amending power is itself part of the Constitution's basic structure. The case arose from a challenge to changes the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 had made to Article 368, and it remains the clearest judicial statement on why Article 368 cannot be stretched to let Parliament rewrite the Constitution's foundations.

Background: From Kesavananda Bharati to the 42nd Amendment

The idea that Article 368 has implied limits was first laid down by a 13-judge bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). That bench held that while Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its "basic structure" — features such as sovereignty and territorial integrity, the federal system, parliamentary government, and judicial review. An amendment damaging these features would be beyond Article 368's scope, even though the article lists no such exceptions.

Parliament pushed back through the 42nd Amendment Act (1976), inserting clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368 to declare that there was no limitation whatsoever on its constituent power and that no amendment could be questioned in court on any ground, including violation of Fundamental Rights. The same amendment altered Article 31C to give directive principles blanket precedence over Articles 14, 19, and 31. In effect, Parliament tried to overrule the basic structure doctrine by amending the very article that empowers amendments.

What the Court held in Minerva Mills

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court examined these changes and struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 as unconstitutional, along with the amendment made to Article 31C. The Court held that both changes destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution and were therefore invalid.

Two features were treated as central to this ruling:

• Limited amending power as a basic feature. Parliament's power under Article 368 is, by design, a limited power. Using that limited power to convert itself into an unlimited power is a contradiction — the donee of a limited power cannot, through exercise of that very power, expand it into an absolute one. Since a bounded amending power is itself a basic feature, an amendment removing the boundary destroys that feature.
• Judicial review as a basic feature. By barring courts from examining amendments on any ground, clauses (4) and (5) sought to exclude judicial review entirely. The Court held that judicial review of amendments is a basic feature, so an amendment removing this scrutiny cannot stand even under Article 368's own procedure.

The Court also restored the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles that the 42nd Amendment had disturbed, holding that this harmony is itself part of the basic structure, and any amendment giving one an absolute upper hand over the other harms that balance.

Article 368: How the Constitution is amended

Article 368 lays down the procedure Parliament must follow to amend the Constitution "by way of addition, variation or repeal." An amendment can be initiated only by introducing a Bill in either House of Parliament — not in a state legislature. The Bill must be passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. There is no provision for a joint sitting if the two Houses disagree, unlike the process for ordinary legislation.

Once passed, the Bill is presented to the President, who must give assent — a step made obligatory by the 24th Amendment Act (1971). There is no time limit prescribed for States to ratify amendments requiring their concurrence.

Ratification and judicial scrutiny in later cases

The ratification requirement under the proviso to Article 368(2) has itself faced judicial review. In Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu (1993), the Supreme Court declared Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule — barring court jurisdiction over disqualification disputes under the anti-defection law — invalid, since it effectively amended the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts without the State ratification Article 368(2)'s proviso requires.

The basic structure doctrine has also reached Ninth Schedule amendments. Laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule on or after 24 April 1973 — the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment — get no blanket immunity from judicial review and must be tested against the Constitution's basic features, including Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Why Minerva Mills matters

Minerva Mills closed the loophole the 42nd Amendment had tried to open. Had clauses (4) and (5) survived, Parliament could have amended the Constitution to remove any check on itself, including judicial review, using nothing more than the ordinary amendment procedure. By striking these down, the Court confirmed that the basic structure doctrine constrains Article 368 itself, not just individual provisions amended under it. Later rulings, including Waman Rao (1980), applied this doctrine going forward from the Kesavananda Bharati judgment date, giving the basic structure framework a settled and continuing role in testing constitutional amendments.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Know that Minerva Mills (1980) struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act (1976).
• Note the amendment to Article 31C was also invalidated in the same case.
• Recall the three ways the Constitution can be amended under and outside Article 368: simple majority, special majority, and special majority with State ratification.
• Remember which provisions require State ratification (federal provisions listed in the proviso to Article 368(2)).

Mains

• Discuss how Minerva Mills extended and consolidated the basic structure doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati.
• Analyse the relationship between judicial review, limited amending power, and the Fundamental Rights–Directive Principles balance as basic features.
• Examine how the case reflects the tension between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy in India.

FAQ

Q1. What did the Supreme Court decide in the Minerva Mills case? It struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 and the amendment to Article 31C, both introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act (1976), holding that they destroyed the Constitution's basic structure.

Q2. Why were clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 held unconstitutional? Because they removed all limitations on Parliament's amending power and excluded judicial review of amendments, and the Court held that a limited amending power and judicial review are themselves basic features that cannot be removed.

Q3. How is Minerva Mills related to the Kesavananda Bharati case? Kesavananda Bharati (1973) first established the basic structure doctrine. Minerva Mills (1980) applied that doctrine to strike down Parliament's attempt, through the 42nd Amendment, to override the doctrine itself.

Q4. What majority is needed to amend the Constitution under Article 368? Most amendments need a special majority — a majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting. Amendments affecting federal provisions additionally need ratification by not less than half the State legislatures.

Q5. What is the significance of the Fundamental Rights–Directive Principles balance in this case? The Court held that harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure, so an amendment giving Directive Principles absolute precedence over Fundamental Rights (as the 42nd Amendment tried to do through Article 31C) is invalid.

Quick Revision

• Minerva Mills v. Union of India — AIR 1980 SC 1789.
• Struck down Article 368(4)-(5) and the amended Article 31C, both from the 42nd Amendment Act (1976).
• Limited amending power and judicial review held to be basic features.
• Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles held to be part of the basic structure.
• Built on the basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
• Article 368 amendments: simple majority, special majority, or special majority plus ratification by half the States.
• 24th Amendment Act (1971) made Presidential assent to amendment Bills obligatory.
• Kihoto Hollohon (1993) struck down Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule for lack of required State ratification.

Sources

• Constitution of India, Article 368 — legislative.gov.in
• Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1980 SC 1789 — Supreme Court of India
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 — Supreme Court of India
• Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 — Supreme Court of India

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.