Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980)

Limits on amendment were fixed decisively by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980), a ruling that struck down Parliament's attempt to make its own amending power unlimited and beyond judicial scrutiny. The case tested changes the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 had made to Article 368, and it settled a basic constitutional question: can Parliament, using the very power the Constitution gives it to amend that Constitution, remove every check on how far it may go? The Court's answer was no, and the reasoning it gave has since anchored how every later amendment is tested.

Background: Parliament's Response to the Basic Structure Doctrine

The idea that Article 368 carries implied limits was not new when Minerva Mills reached the Supreme Court. In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Court had already struck down part of a similar change Parliament had made to Article 31C through the 25th Amendment Act, 1971, signalling that Parliament's amending power was not open-ended.

Rather than accept this constraint, Parliament used the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 to amend Article 368 itself. It inserted clauses (4) and (5), declaring that there was no limitation whatsoever on Parliament's constituent power to amend the Constitution and that no amendment could be questioned in any court on any ground, including that it violated Fundamental Rights. The same Act also made further changes to Article 31C. In effect, Parliament tried to use its amending power to place that very power beyond every future limit, including judicial review.

What the Supreme Court Held

In Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, along with the accompanying change to Article 31C, holding that both provisions destroyed the Constitution's basic structure.

The Court's central reasoning rested on the nature of Parliament's amending power itself: since the Constitution had conferred only a limited amending power on Parliament, Parliament could not, by exercising that very limited power, enlarge it into an absolute and unlimited power. A power that is limited by definition cannot be used to erase its own limits — doing so would not be an amendment but a replacement of the Constitution's basic character.

On this reasoning, the Court held that two things were themselves basic, unamendable features of the Constitution:

• A limited amending power. Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend, not the power to destroy or unlimitedly recreate the Constitution.
• Judicial review. By barring courts from examining amendments on any ground, clauses (4) and (5) had tried to exclude judicial review entirely. The Court held that judicial review is a basic feature, so no amendment — even one following Article 368's own procedure — can remove it.

The Court also reaffirmed the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles that the Article 31C change had disturbed, treating this balance as part of the basic structure as well. It reiterated the basic structure doctrine even against the argument that the changes served social welfare and Directive Principle goals, holding that the basic structure cannot be violated even when an amendment is made with good intentions.

Elements of the Basic Structure Identified in the Case

Minerva Mills is commonly read alongside other basic-structure rulings of the same period, each of which added specific features to the doctrine.

Minerva Mills Among the Amendments Struck Down

Minerva Mills is one of several rulings in which the Supreme Court has invalidated a constitutional amendment, in whole or in part, for breaching the basic structure.

Seen in this line-up, Minerva Mills stands out because it did not merely strike down an amendment that touched a specific right or institution — it struck down Parliament's attempt to change the ground rules of amendment itself.

Judicial Review as the Guardrail

Judicial review is generally understood to operate in three areas: review of constitutional amendments, review of laws passed by Parliament and state legislatures (including subordinate legislation), and review of administrative action by Union and state authorities. Minerva Mills is the leading example of the first category, alongside cases such as the Golaknath case (1967), the Bank Nationalisation case (1970), the Privy Purses Abolition case (1970), and the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), in which the Supreme Court examined and, where necessary, invalidated changes Parliament had made to the Constitution. The same power was exercised decades later in 2015, when the Supreme Court declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the accompanying National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 unconstitutional.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980) struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
• The same judgment also invalidated the 42nd Amendment's change to Article 31C.
• Elements of the basic structure identified in this case: limited amending power, judicial review, and harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
• Recall other cases in which constitutional amendments were struck down, such as Golak Nath (1967) and Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Mains

• Explain, with reference to Minerva Mills, why a "limited amending power" is treated as a contradiction if it can be used to make itself unlimited.
• Discuss the role of judicial review as a check on Parliament's constituent power under Article 368.
• Examine how Minerva Mills reflects the continuing tension between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy in India.

FAQ

Q1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980)? It struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 and the accompanying change to Article 31C, both introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, on the ground that they destroyed the Constitution's basic structure.

Q2. What are the limits on amendment that this case established? The Court held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is inherently limited and cannot be used to convert itself into an unlimited power, and that judicial review of amendments cannot be excluded by any amendment.

Q3. How does Minerva Mills relate to the Kesavananda Bharati case? Kesavananda Bharati (1973) had already limited Parliament's amending power by striking down part of a related change to Article 31C. Minerva Mills (1980) went further, invalidating Parliament's attempt, through the 42nd Amendment, to remove that limitation altogether.

Q4. Why was excluding judicial review considered unconstitutional? The Court treated judicial review as a basic, unamendable feature of the Constitution. Removing courts' power to examine amendments would have let Parliament rewrite the Constitution's basic structure without any check.

Q5. What happened to the Fundamental Rights–Directive Principles balance in this case? The Court held that harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is itself part of the basic structure, so the 42nd Amendment's change to Article 31C, which disturbed this balance, could not stand.

Quick Revision

• Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980) — Supreme Court judgment on limits on amendment.
• Struck down Article 368, clauses (4) and (5), inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
• Also struck down the 42nd Amendment's change to Article 31C.
• Held: a limited amending power cannot be used to make itself unlimited.
• Judicial review confirmed as a basic, unamendable feature of the Constitution.
• Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles held to be part of the basic structure.
• Built on limits first recognised in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).

Sources

• Constitution of India, Article 368 — legislative.gov.in
• Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others — Supreme Court of India, 1980
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala — Supreme Court of India, 1973

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.