Minerva Mills v. Union of India is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India that was delivered in 1980. The case arose out of a challenge to the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, which amended the Constitution to give primacy to the Directive Principles of State Policy over the fundamental rights. The appellants, Minerva Mills and others, challenged the validity of the Forty-second Amendment on the grounds that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the challenge and declared the Forty-second Amendment to be unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court observed that the Forty-second Amendment had the effect of undermining the fundamental rights, which are the cornerstone of the Constitution and are essential for the protection of the individual liberty and dignity of the citizens. The Court also held that the Directive Principles of State Policy cannot be used to override the fundamental rights.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case was a significant development in the Indian constitutional law, as it upheld the Doctrine of Basic Structure and reaffirmed the primacy of the fundamental rights over the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a judicial doctrine that limits the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution of India and is based on the theory that the Constitution is not a mere legal document, but a social contract between the people of India and the government. It protects the essential features and fundamental principles of the Constitution from being amended by the Parliament.
The Doctrine of Basic Structure has played a crucial role in upholding the sovereignty, democracy, and secularism of the Indian Constitution. It has protected the fundamental rights of the citizens, the independence of the judiciary, and the federal structure of the government.
The Minerva Mills case is a landmark judgment that has had a significant impact on the Indian constitutional law and has reaffirmed the Doctrine of Basic Structure. It has also played a crucial role in protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens and in maintaining the balance of power between the different branches of the government. The case has been cited as a leading authority on the Doctrine of Basic Structure and has been followed in several subsequent cases, including I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
Despite the importance of the Doctrine of Basic Structure, it has also been criticized on the grounds that it gives the judiciary too much power to interpret the Constitution and determine its basic structure. Some argue that this power should be left to the elected representatives of the people, rather than the judges.
Despite these criticisms, the Doctrine of Basic Structure remains an important concept in the Indian constitutional law, and has played a crucial role in protecting the core principles of the Constitution from any amendment that may undermine its basic structure. It has helped to preserve the sovereignty, democracy, and secularism of the Indian Constitution, and has ensured that the fundamental rights of the citizens are protected. The case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India is a landmark judgment that has had a significant impact on the Indian constitutional law and has reaffirmed the Doctrine of Basic Structure.