Research on important

case’s
Under constitutional
law

Submitted to : V.Abhinav
Deep Dora
Assistant
professor

Submitted by : Patel
Adarsh
3rd year BA LLB Hons
 Reg no:
221FU01019

Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors v. Union of India &

Ors (1980)
The Minerva Mills case, properly titled as Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors v. Union
of India & Ors (1980), was a major decision by India’s Supreme Court that
strengthened the idea Of the Constitution’s Basic Structure. The decision
highlighted the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy, as well as the limits of Parliament’s ability to
modify the Constitution.

Circumstances of the case :

Minerva Mills, a textile manufacturing business in Karnataka, was
nationalized by the Indian government under the Sick Textile
Undertakings (Nationalization) Act of 1974. The company's
management contested the legitimacy of several elements of the
42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which made significant changes to
the Constitution, including expanding Parliament's ability to
modify it.

Issues
1. Extent of Parliament's Amending Power: Whether Parliament,
through the 42nd

Amendment, could amend the Constitution in a manner that abrogated or

took away

fundamental rights.
2. Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles: Whether the

42nd Amendment's provisions that gave primacy to the Directive

Principles of State

Policy over the Fundamental Rights were valid.

Judgment and Important amendments

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on July 31, 1980, with a
unanimous decision.

The key points of the judgment are:

1. Doctrine of Basic Structure: The court reaffirmed the Basic

Structure Doctrine laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case. It held that
the Basic Structure of the Constitution could not be altered by any
amendment, including changes that could undermine the supremacy of
the Constitution, the democratic form of government, the separation of
powers, and judicial review.

2. Invalidation of Certain Provisions of the 42nd

Amendment:Article 368 (4) and (5): These clauses, which barred
judicial review of constitutional amendments, were declared
unconstitutional. The court held that these provisions violated the Basic
Structure of the Constitution by eliminating the power of judicial review.

Article 31C: The expanded version of Article 31C, which gave primacy to
all Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights, was struck down. The
court ruled That giving such overriding power to the Directive Principles
would undermine The fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution, which is a Part of the Basic Structure.

The court Emphasized that while both Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles are important, Neither can be given absolute primacy over the
other. It reaffirmed that Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct and cannot be
overridden by any amendment or law.

Restored Judicial Review: It reaffirmed the power of the judiciary to

review and strike Down constitutional amendments that violate the Basic
Structure of the Constitution. 2. Clarified the Relationship between
Rights and Principles: The court’s decision Clarified that while the
Directive Principles guide state policy, they cannot undermine The
Fundamental Rights, which are essential to the Basic Structure
3. Limited Parliamentary Power: The judgment curtailed Parliament’s
power to amend The Constitution, ensuring that any such amendment
must respect the Basic Structure.

Explanation
The Minerva Mills case is an important issue in Indian constitutional law
because it reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and established that
Parliament's ability to change the Constitution is not absolute. The
Supreme Court's verdict upheld the supremacy of the Constitution,
people' fundamental rights, and the judiciary's responsibility in preserving
checks and balances within India's democratic system.

Kesavananda Bharati vs state of Kerala

The Kesavananda Bharati case, also known as Kesavananda Bharati v.
State of Kerala (1973), is one of the most important in Indian
constitutional law. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case established the
notion of the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution, which has far-reaching
ramifications for constitutional modifications in India.

Background of the Case

The events which are leading to Kesavananda Bharti's case dates back to
1951. Soon after the enforcement of the Constitution, the question was
prevalent regarding the extent of amending powers of the Constitution.
The prominent question in all the following cases was that whether
fundamental rights are amendable and whether the word 'law' under
Article 13 includes the amending law.

Issues
The main issue was whether the Parliament had the unrestricted power to
amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, or if there
were inherent limitations to this power.

Supreme Court's Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment on April 24, 1973, with a
narrow majority of 7:6. The key points of the judgment are:

1. Parliament's Power to Amend the Constitution:

o The court held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the
Constitution under Article 368, this power is not absolute.

2. Doctrine of Basic Structure:The court determined that Parliament

cannot change the "basic structure" or "basic features" of the
Constitution. This idea asserts that some essential aspects of the
Constitution, such as its democratic and secular nature, the rule of law,
and the separation of powers, are inviolable.

The "basic structure" was not fully defined, but it was understood to
include elements such as the supremacy of the Constitution, republican
and democratic government, secular character, separation of powers, and
federalism in the (or) of the Constitution.

Important Amendments and provisions

Following the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, several constitutional
amendments were made to address the issues and clarify the scope of
Parliament's amending power:

42nd Amendment (1976)

Objective: This amendment, known as the "Mini-Constitution," was

enacted during the Emergency period to reduce judicial intervention and
enhance the power of Parliament.
 Article 368 (4) and (5): Inserted to state that any constitutional
amendment passed by

Parliament could not be questioned in any court on any ground, effectively

seeking to

negate the basic structure doctrine.

Fundamental Duties: Added Part IV-A (Article 51A) to introduce

Fundamental Duties for citizens.

Article 31C Expansion: Extended the scope of Article 31C to protect

laws implementing any of the Directive Principles from being challenged
for violating Fundamental Rights.

44th Amendment (1978)

Objective: This amendment aimed to undo some of the changes made by

the 42nd Amendment and to restore the balance of power between the
Parliament and the judiciary.

Summary
The Kesavananda Bharati case profoundly impacted constitutional reforms
in India. It resulted in the adoption of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which
limits Parliament's ability to modify the Constitution by safeguarding its
key aspects. The 42nd and 44th Amendments were direct reactions to this
concept, with the 44th restoring the balance of power and requiring
judicial review of constitutional amendments. The Kesavananda Bharati
decision is still considered a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law,
protecting the Constitution's integrity and essential foundations.

shankari prasad vs union of india case summary

Facts of the Case:
Shankari prasad vs union of india citation isAIR 1951 SC 458

In order to abolish the zamindari framework that was widely used

throughout India, a few state councils established the Zamindari Abolition
Act in order to implement specific agrarian reforms, especially in Madhya
Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar.

Such an enactment required the distribution of enormous land holdings

owned by wealthy zamindars among the populace. Feeling upset, some
Zamindars challenged the demonstration in court, arguing that it was
unlawful and infringed upon their fundamental rights, such as the right to
property guaranteed to them by Part III of the Constitution.

While the high courts in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, and Nagpur, Madhya
Pradesh, upheld the validity of the state-passed legislation, the Patna high
court ruled that the Act passed in Bihar was illegal.

Progress resulting from the decisions and appeals recorded by various

zamindars in these tribunals was soon to come. In the middle of it, a bill to
amend the Constitution was presented by the Union Parliament in an
attempt to end all lawsuits.

After undergoing several modifications, the Bill was ultimately approved

by the required majority and became the Constitution (First Amendment)
Act of 1951.

The Amendment Act was sufficient in that it limited the fundamental right
to property and approved the Zamindari Abolition Laws.

It was necessary to recall New Articles 31A and 31B in order for the
Constitution to sanction the criticized actions.

In response, the zamindars filed the current petitions under Article 32 of

the Constitution, requesting a writ under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny to
test the Amendment Act and declare it invalid and unlawful.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court of India unanimously upheld the Constitution (First
Amendment) Act,

1951. The Court ruled that the term "law" in Article 13(2) of the
Constitution did not refer to constitutional amendments made under
Article 368. As a result, Parliament had the authority to amend the
Constitution, including fundamental rights.

Important significant of the case

1. Parliament's Amending Power: The Shankari Prasad case affirmed
the supremacy of

Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, including the fundamental

rights, under

Article 368. This interpretation empowered Parliament to pursue social

and economic

reforms through constitutional amendments.

2. Ninth Schedule: The introduction of the Ninth Schedule protected

certain laws from

judicial scrutiny, ensuring that reforms, particularly in land redistribution,

could

proceed without being invalidated on the grounds of violating

fundamental rights. This

provision aimed to prevent landowners from using judicial challenges to

hinder agrarian

reforms.

3. Foundation for Future Cases: The judgment set a precedent for

future cases

concerning constitutional amendments. It established that constitutional

amendments

were outside the scope of judicial review regarding their conformity with
fundamental

rights, a principle later revisited and refined in subsequent landmark

cases like Golak

Nath (1967) and Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

4. Balancing Social Justice and Individual Rights: The case

highlighted the tension

between the need for social and economic reforms and the protection of
individual

rights. It underscored the necessity of balancing these competing

interests within a

constitutional framework.
Conclusion: The Shankari Prasad case established the judiciary’s
interpretation of Parliament’s Amending power, making it a significant
moment in Indian constitutional history. It emphasized The Indian
Constitution’s flexibility, allowing it to adapt to changing socioeconomic
conditions Through amendments while also laying the groundwork for
ongoing debates about the limits of Such changes. This case remains a
critical reference point for understanding the evolution of Indian
constitutional law.

Golak Nath vs. the State of Punjab

Following the Golak Nath case in 1967, several key constitutional
amendments were enacted to address the concerns expressed by the
Supreme Court's ruling and to redefine the scope of Parliament's ability to
modify the Constitution. Here are the important amendments:

24th Amendment (1971)

Objective: This amendment was a direct response to the Golak Nath

judgment, aiming to restore the Parliament's power to amend any part of
the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.

Key Provisions:
Article 13 (4): Added to clarify that an amendment to the Constitution is
not a "law"

under Article 13, thus not subject to judicial review on the grounds of
violation of

Fundamental Rights.

Article 368 (1): Stated explicitly that Parliament has the power to
amend any provision

of the Constitution by following the procedure laid down in Article 368.

Article 368 (3): Specified that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to an

amendment made under Article 368.

25th Amendment (1971)

Objective: This amendment aimed to reduce judicial intervention in socio-

economic reforms and strengthen the state's power to implement its
policies.
Key Provisions:

Article 31C: Introduced to ensure that any law enacted to implement the
Directive Principles of State Policy in Articles 39(b) and (c) would not be
deemed void on the grounds of inconsistency with Fundamental Rights
under Articles 14, 19, or 31.

It also limited the judicial review of such laws, except on the grounds of
procedural irregularity.

42nd Amendment (1976)

Objective: Known as the "Mini-Constitution," this amendment sought to

reduce the power of the judiciary and enhance the authority of the
Parliament.

Key Provisions:
Article 31C Expansion: Extended the scope of Article 31C to include all
Directive

Principles, not just Articles 39(b) and (c).

Article 368 (4) and (5): Inserted clauses to state that no amendment made
under Article

368 could be questioned in any court, and there would be no limitation on

the

constituent power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

Fundamental Duties: Added Part 5A (Articles 51A) to introduce

Fundamental Duties

for citizens.

44th Amendment (1978)

Objective: This amendment was enacted to undo some of the changes

made by the 42nd

Amendment and to restore the balance of power between the Parliament

and the judiciary.

Key Provisions:
Article 31C Restriction: Restricted the scope of Article 31C to its original
formulation,
protecting laws enacted to implement only Articles 39(b) and (c) from
being challenged for violating Articles 14, 19, and 31.

Emergency Provisions: Amended provisions related to the proclamation of

emergency and the rights of detained persons to strengthen democratic
processes and individual liberties.

summarize, by those modifications, the Parliament sought to reaffirm

its authority to amend even the Fundamental Rights, overturning the
Golak Nath decision. However, the Kesavananda Bharati decision
established the "basic structure" theory, which states that while
Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution, it cannot change
its core elements.

The Golak Nath case was a watershed moment in Indian constitutional

law, cementing the judiciary's power and creating the notion of judicial
review. It was a critical case in the defenceof fundamental rights, having
far-reaching implications for Indian constitutional law .The case evolved
from a disagreement about land reforms in Punjab. The Golak Nath family
challenged the constitutionality of the First, Fourth, and Seventeenth
Amendments, which designated certain land reform policies as Ninth --
Schedule, immune from judicial scrutiny. An 11-judge bench was formed
to resolve the issue of Parliament's competence to modify Fundamental

Rights.

Sagan Singh vs State of Rajasthan

The Sajjan Singh case, formally known as "Sajjan Singh vs State of
Rajasthan" (1965), is

another landmark case in the constitutional history of India. It built upon

the precedent set by the Shankari Prasad case regarding the scope and
limitations of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. This case
primarily examined the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment to the
Indian Constitution.

Issue : The Seventeenth Amendment Act of 1964 added several state

laws to the NinthSchedule of the Indian Constitution, thus protecting these
laws from being challenged in courts on the grounds of violating
fundamental rights. This amendment was part of a broader effort to
implement land reform laws and ensure socio-economic justice by
redistributing land and abolishing the zamindari system.
The Case: Sajjan Singh, a landholder from Rajasthan, challenged the
Seventeenth Amendment(17th ), arguing that it violated his fundamental
rights under the Constitution. He contended that the amendment
undermined the basic structure of the Constitution by infringing upon the

fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens.

Arguments: Petitioner’s Argument: Sajjan Singh argued that the

Seventeenth Amendment (17th), like any other amendment affecting
fundamental rights, should be scrutinized for its constitutionality. He
asserted that the amendment process should not be used to bypass
judicial review and nullify fundamental rights.

State’s Argument: The State of Rajasthan, defending the amendment,

contended that Parliament had the absolute power to amend any part of
the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368. The
State argued that the amendment was essential for implementing land
reforms and achieving social justice.

Judgment: The Supreme Court of India, in a 3:2 majority decision, upheld

the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment. The majority opinion held
that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution,
including fundamental rights, under Article 368. The Court reaffirmed the
position taken in the Shankari Prasad case, stating that constitutional
amendments were not subject to judicial review on the grounds of
violating fundamental rights.

Important significant of the case:

1. Reaffirmation of Parliamentary Supremacy: The Sajjan Singh case
reinforced the principle that Parliament had wide-ranging powers to
amend the Constitution, including provisions related to fundamental
rights. This reaffirmation of parliamentary supremacy provided continuity
and stability to the process of constitutional amendments.

2. Continuity of Land Reforms: By upholding the Seventeenth

Amendment(17th ), the Supreme Court ensured that land reform laws
included in the Ninth Schedule remained protected from judicial scrutiny.
This protection facilitated the implementation of agrarian reforms aimed
at reducing socio-economic inequalities and promoting social justice.

3. Dissenting Opinion and Future Implications: The dissenting

opinion in the case raised concerns about the potential misuse of the
amending power to undermine fundamental rights. This dissent laid the
groundwork for future judicial interpretations, particularly in the landmark
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which introduced the basic structure
doctrine to limit Parliament’s amending power.

4. Evolving Judicial Approach: The Sajjan Singh case marked an

important step in the evolving judicial approach to constitutional
amendments. While it upheld the broad amending power of Parliament, it
also highlighted the need for a more nuanced understanding of the
balance between constitutional flexibility and the protection of
fundamental rights.

Summary
The Sajjan Singh case reaffirmed Parliament's broad power to amend the
Constitution, including fundamental rights. It emphasized the importance
of land reform and social justice, while also laying the groundwork for
future debates and judicial interpretations of the amending power's
limitations. The case remains an important reference point for
understanding the dynamic interplay between constitutional amendments
and fundamental rights in India.