SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V.Chandrachud CJI., A.C.Gupta, N.L.Untwalia, P.N.Bhagwati, P.S.Kailasam, JJ.
Minerva Mills Limited
Versus
Union Of India
Case No., 356-361 of 1977
Date of Decision, 5/9/80
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 13, 14, 19, 31C and 368 - Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976 - Sections 4 and 55 - Damages Basic Or Essential Features Of Constitution - Notwithstanding anything contained no law giving effect to policy of state towards securing all or any of principles laid down shall be deemed to be void on ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of rights conferred and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on ground that it does not give effect to such policy - Provided that where such law is made by legislature of a state provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law having been reserved for consideration of president has received his assent - Beyond amending power of parliament and is void since it damages basic or essential features of constitution and destroys its basic structure by a total exclusion of challenge to any law on ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of rights conferred if law is for giving effect to policy of state towards securing all or any of principles laid down - Held, For removal of doubts it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on constituent power of parliament to amend by way of addition variation or repeal provisions of this constitution - Beyond amending power of parliament and is voidance it removes all limitations on power of parliament to amend constitution and confers power upon it to amend constitution so as to damage or destroy its basic or essential features or its basic structure - Fuller reasons for decision will follow later whereupon writ petition will be set down for hearing for consideration of other points involved therein - Question which arises for determination in these writ petitions is as to whether is constitutionally valid - I cannot persuade myself to pass an order pronouncing upon this question without a reasoned judgment since question is one of grave and momentous consequence involving as it does validity of a constitutional amendment - I would therefore prefer to pass a final order in this case when I deliver my reasoned judgment on reopening of court after summer vacation -
(1) S. 4 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, which came into force with effect from 3/01/1977 amended Article 31-C 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 Article 39". Article 31-C, as amended reads thus:
31-C. Notwithstanding any thing 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, Article 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 received his assent.
Section 4 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act is beyond the amending power of the Parliament and is void since it damages the basic or essential features of the Constitution and destroys its basic structure by a total exclusion of challenge to any law on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19 of the Constitution, if the law is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV of the Constitution.
(2) S. 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, which came into force with effect from 3/01/1977 inserted sub-sections (4) and (5) in Article 368 which read thus :
(4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have been made under the Article [whether before or after the commencement of S. 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976] shall be called in question in any court on any ground.
(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this Article.
Section 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act is beyond the amending power of the Parliament and is void ¯ince it removes all limitations on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and confers power upon it to amend the Constitution so as to damage or destroy its basic or essential features or its basic structure.
(3) FULLER reasons for the decision will follow later whereupon, the Writ Petition will be set down for hearing for consideration of the other points involved therein.
Bhagwati, J.
(4) THE question which arises for determination in these writ petitions is as to whether S. 4 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amend- ment) Act of 1976 amending Article 31-C of the Constitution is constitutionally valid. I cannot persuade myself to pass an order pronouncing upon this question without a reasoned judgment, since the question is one of grave and momentous consequence involving, as it does, the validity of a constitutional amendment. I would, therefore, prefer to pass a final order in this case when I deliver my reasoned judgment on the reopening of the court after the summer vacation.
applied : Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesaoanada Bharati v. State of Kerala
Sankari Prasad v. Union of India
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
IC Golakruith v.State of Panjab
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U P
referred to : State of W B v. Bela Bannerjee
relied on : I CGolaknath v. State of Punjab
Sankari Prasad v. Union of India
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
discussed : Kesaonaanda Bharati v. State of Kerala
relied on : Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
disapproved : Karimbil Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala
Madhav Hayawadaorao Hoskot v. State of
explained : State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
relied on : In re the Kerala Education Bill
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh
Kahturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J K
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Order in Woman Rao v. Union of India
referred to : Akadasi Padhan v. Stale of orissa
Rashbhari Panda v. State of orissa
Vrajlal Manilal Co v. State of M P
State of Bombay v. F X Balsara
relied on : State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India
explained : Bhut Nath Mete v. State of W B
relied on : Lakhan Pal v. Union of India
Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U P
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.