— a case that played a crucial role in shaping the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution.
Mills v. Union of India – Full Story
⚖️ Background:
Minerva Mills Ltd. was a private textile company located in Bangalore. In 1970, the Government of India, under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, referred the company for investigation, claiming it was being mismanaged in a manner that was prejudicial to the public interest.
Eventually, under Section 18A of the Act, the management of Minerva Mills was taken over by the Central Government.
The company challenged this action in the High Court, which dismissed their petition. The company then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
However, this case quickly became much bigger than a company dispute — because it questioned some major constitutional amendments and raised the core issue of the “Basic Structure Doctrine”.
📜 The Constitutional Context:
The case was heard in the wake of the infamous Emergency period (1975-1977) under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, during which several controversial constitutional amendments were made.
Two key provisions were challenged:
1. Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment (1976):
It amended Article 31C, stating:
If a law is made to implement any Directive Principle (Part IV), it cannot be struck down on the grounds of violating Fundamental Rights (Part III).
Originally, Article 31C gave this protection only to laws made for Articles 39(b) and 39(c). The 42nd Amendment extended this to all Directive Principles.
2. Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment:
It added Clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368, stating that:
No constitutional amendment can be “called into question in any court” on any ground, effectively removing judicial review even for constitutional changes.
These two amendments were seen as an attempt by the Parliament to gain unchecked power, bypassing judicial scrutiny and overriding Fundamental Rights.
🧑⚖️ Issues Before the Supreme Court:
The case raised four major questions:
- Whether the amendment to Article 31C (by Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment) was valid.
- Whether Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 (by Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment) were valid.
- Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution.
- Whether the Directive Principles can override Fundamental Rights.
⚖️ The Supreme Court’s Verdict (1980):
The Constitution Bench (5 judges) delivered a majority verdict (4:1) on 31 July 1980, led by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud.
🔹 1. Article 31C (as amended by 42nd Amendment) was struck down.
- The Court held that the extension of Article 31C to all Directive Principles was unconstitutional.
- It damaged the Basic Structure of the Constitution by destroying the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
“The Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Part III and Part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony,” – CJI Chandrachud
🔹 2. Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 were struck down.
- The Court ruled that these clauses take away judicial review, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.
- Judicial review is essential to check the misuse of power by Parliament.
“Limited amending power is part of the basic structure… Parliament cannot destroy the essential features of the Constitution.”
🔹 3. Reaffirmation of the Basic Structure Doctrine (from Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973):
- Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys or damages its basic structure.
- The Basic Structure includes:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Rule of law
- Separation of powers
- Judicial review
- Fundamental Rights
🔸 Dissenting Opinion – Justice P.N. Bhagwati:
- Justice Bhagwati partly dissented, holding that the amendment to Article 31C could be valid to implement Directive Principles, depending on how it is interpreted.
- But he agreed that Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 were unconstitutional.
📌 Significance of the Judgment:
- Strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine
- Reaffirmed that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited.
- Re-established the importance of Fundamental Rights
- Ensured that Fundamental Rights like equality (Article 14) and freedom (Article 19) cannot be sacrificed for vague or unchecked Directive Principles.
- Upheld Judicial Review
- Ensured that courts can review and strike down unconstitutional amendments.
- Check on Authoritarianism
- The judgment was a direct blow to the Emergency-era overreach and restored democratic checks and balances.
📚 Key Takeaway Quote:
“The Constitution is not a mere political document; it is a vehicle of life, and its spirit must be respected.” – Justice Chandrachud
⚖️ Final Verdict:
- Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment are unconstitutional.
- Article 31C is restored to its original limited scope.
- Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 are struck down.
- Basic Structure Doctrine stands reaffirmed.
Add a Comment