மினர்வா மில் வழக்கு 1980 | MINERVA MILLS CASE Vs UNION OF INDIA | UPSC | TNPSC GROUP 1,2,2A,4 |

Fundamental Rights are the essence of the Constitution and should be considered more than a directive principle because they can be enforced by the Court. The three organs of the Constitution include legislation, executive, and judiciary. It is important that there should be a right balance between them. There have been instances where the executive and legislative have committed action in order to expand power over the other organs. To protect the rights of the individual judiciary have time and again taken steps to protect those rights. In the case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India a similar attempt was made to exploit the power of the Parliament.


On 24, 1973 the Supreme Court pronounced its one of the most historic judgments in the history of the Indian Constitution.

The government through the Land Acquisition Act, 1969 tried to acquire the land of Kesavananda Bharati under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Before the challenge, there were a series of amendments passed:

First: 24th Amendment It provided power to the Parliament to make an amendment and nothing would, in Article 13 apply made under Article 368.
Second: 25th Amendment It reduced the burden from the State to adequately compensate the landlords. This removes the link between Article 19(c) and Article 31(c) of the Indian Constitution. Article 39 clauses (b) and (c) was given more primacy over Article 14, 19, or 31 of the Indian Constitution.
Third: 29th Amendment inserted Kerala Land Reform Act, 1969 in the Ninth Schedule thus making it outside the scope of judiciary to review.


Judgment:

The Court held that the Parliament can amend the Constitution without hampering the basic structure doctrine.
The Parliament can amend fundamental rights as long as they are in consonance of the basic structure doctrine.
The Court struck down the part which restricted the Judicial Review.
This Judgment didn’t go well with the legislation then the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 was passed which mentioned that all or any Directive Principle of the State Policy would have primacy over the Fundamental Rights of Article 14 and 19. Further inserted clauses (4) and (5) stated that the Constitutional Amendment under Article 368 is outside the scope of judicial review. This amendment was passed to nullify the effect of the judgment passed in the Kesavananda Bharati case so that any law can be implemented without the fear of judicial scrutiny.

Facts of the case
Minerva mills is a textile mill located near the Bengaluru city. The Central Government considering the substantial fall in the production of Minerva mills appointed a committee under Section 15 of the Industries Development Act,1951 this was done in the year 1970. The committee submitted its report to the Central Government in October 1971. The Central Government authorized the National textile Corporation Limited which was a body formed under the Industries Development Act,1951 to take over the management of Minerva mills. In the 39th amendment, nationalization was included in the ninth schedule which was outside the purview of judicial review. After a huge setback in Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain to have supreme power, a 42nd amendment was passed in the parliament which amended Article 31C through Section 4 of the Constitutional amendment Act, 1976. Further Section 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 made amendments in Article 368.


மினர்வா மில் வழக்கு 1980 | MINERVA MILLS CASE Vs UNION OF INDIA | UPSC | TNPSC GROUP 1,2,2A,4 |