Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others

The management of the petitioners' textile mill was taken over by the Central Government in 1971 under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and the undertaking was later nationalised under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. In challenging the takeover, the petitioners also challenged Sections 4 and 55 of the Forty-second Amendment, which had been enacted during the Emergency.

Writing for the majority, Chandrachud C.J. held that the limited nature of the amending power is itself part of the basic structure. Parliament cannot use Article 368 to enlarge its amending power so as to acquire the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or destroy its basic features; a body given a limited power cannot use that power to make it unlimited. Clause (5) was therefore void. Clause (4), which sought to exclude judicial review of amendments, was void as well, because judicial review is itself a basic feature.

On Article 31C, the majority held that the Constitution rests on a balance between the Fundamental Rights in Part III and the Directive Principles in Part IV, which it likened to two wheels of a chariot. Giving every Directive Principle absolute primacy over Articles 14 and 19 would destroy that balance, which is a basic feature, so the extension of Article 31C was invalid. The Article in its original form, protecting laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c), had been upheld in Kesavananda Bharati and was not in issue.

Bhagwati J. agreed that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 were void, but dissented on Article 31C, holding that giving precedence to the Directive Principles did not damage the basic structure.