Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1980 Supreme(SC) 270

N. L. UNTWALIA, P. N. BHAGWATI, P. S. KAILASAM, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, A. C. GUPTA
Minerva Mills LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act (amending Article 31C) held unconstitutional by the majority as damaging the basic structure; declared void. (!) (!) (!) - Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act (amending Article 368) held unconstitutional for removing all limitations on amending power, thereby destroying basic structure; declared void. (!) (!) (!) - Article 31C, in its amended form, was upheld as constitutional by the author of this judgment's minority view portion, finding no damage to basic structure and within amending power; however, the majority did not uphold this view. The core issue remains limits on Parliament’s amending power and the basic structure doctrine as established in Kesavananda Bharati. (!) (!) (!)

What is the validity of Section 4 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 amending Article 31C?

What is the validity of Section 55 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 amending Article 368?

What is the extent of the amending power of Parliament under Article 368 and the concept of the basic structure of the Constitution?

JUDGMENT

ORDER dated 9th May, 1980 (Y. V. Chandrachud, CJI. and Gupta, Untwalia and Kailasam, JJ.) :— Sec. 4 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, which came into force with effect from January 3, 1977 amended Article 31C of the Constitution by substituting the words and figures "all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV" for the words and figures "the principles specified in Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Art. 39". Article 31C, as amended reads thus :

"31C, Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Art. 19 or Article 31, and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy :

Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has rec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

Based on the provided list, no cases are explicitly identified as "overruled" or "reversed." However, there are instances where specific provisions or legislative actions discussed within the *Minerva Mills* litigation were declared invalid.

* **PILANI INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS UNION OF INDIA - 1980 0 Supreme(MP) 284 / LAKSHMIMONI DAS VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 1987 0 Supreme(Cal) 228 / PILANI INVESTMENT AND INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA - 1988 0 Supreme(MP) 38 / RAJENDRA N. SHAH VS UNION OF INDIA - 2013 0 Supreme(Guj) 153:** These entries refer to the *Minerva Mills* decision striking down clauses of the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. While the case itself is not "bad law," it is the mechanism by which specific constitutional provisions were abrogated/struck down.

* **SUSHIL SHARMA VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 1991 0 Supreme(MP) 448:** Explicitly states: "that provision was struck down as invalid in Minerva Mills."

**1. Followed/Affirmed/Reiterated**

The vast majority of the provided entries cite *Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India* as a foundational authority that has been "followed," "reiterated," or "relied upon" as a "basic structure" doctrine precedent.

* **Bharati Reddy VS State of Karnataka - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1352, Kalpana Mehta VS Union of India - 2018 5 Supreme 545, DINESHBHAI CHHAGANBHAI GAMIT VS GUJARAT STATE ELECTION COMMISSION - 2021 0 Supreme(Guj) 188, Munesh Devi W/o Shri Narendra VS State of Rajasthan, through Additional Chief Secretary - 2020 0 Supreme(Raj) 392, Suneeta Singh VS State Of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 507:** These explicitly state: "This view was followed by a Constitution Bench in Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors."

* **State of West Bengal VS Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 0 Supreme(SC) 144, Prithvi Raj VS State Election Commission, Punjab - 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 1387:** Use the language "reiterated in subsequent decisions" or "affirmed in numerous judicial pronouncements."

* **GAYA NATH RAJBANSHI VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 151, MAHESH CHAND EX-LNK/CI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 1089, Property Owners Association VS State of Maharashtra - 2024 8 Supreme 387:** Group *Minerva Mills* with *Kesavananda Bharati* as the pillars of judicial review and basic structure doctrine.

**2. Distinguished/Critical Commentary (Nuanced)**

* **Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company VS Bharat Coking Coal LTD. - 1982 0 Supreme(SC) 236:** Mentions: "We have some misgivings about the Minerva Mills decision despite its rare beauty and persuasive rhetoric." This indicates a critical judicial attitude, though it does not explicitly overrule the case.

* **S. P. Sampath Kumar: J. N. Gupta: D. J. Somaiya VS Union Of India - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 537 / State of West Bengal VS Rudrojyoti Bhattacharjee - 1996 0 Supreme(Cal) 8 / Daulat Singh VS Union of India - 1993 0 Supreme(MP) 450:** The judges involved note that their own judgments in *Minerva Mills* were "minority judgments," yet they acknowledge the majority view as the governing law.

* **Jai Prakash Pal VS State of U. P. Thr. Chief Secretary, Civil Sectt. Lko. - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 2256 / STATE OF KARNATAKA VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU - 2016 8 Supreme 481:** These entries contain fragmented or repetitive references to *Minerva Mills* and other cases (like *Waman Rao* or *S.P. Sampath Kumar*) without defining a specific treatment pattern. While they clearly treat the cases as ongoing, valid authority, the context is primarily procedural citation rather than a specific judicial treatment of the ruling's status.

* **NARAYANSINGH VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 1988 0 Supreme(MP) 267 / Valluvar Gurukulam VS Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2076:** These entries mention *Minerva Mills* alongside other cases where the treatment is context-dependent (e.g., "found a constitutional duty to construe law"). These are classified as uncertain because the entries primarily focus on interpreting the law *in* the case rather than the status *of* the case.