Minerva Mills vs Union of India

In the landmark case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India described that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. This case, which was heard by a larger bench of the Supreme Court, played a significant role in defining the relationship between these two pillars of the Indian Constitution.

Background:
The case arose out of a dispute between the Minerva Mills Ltd., a textile company, and the government of India. The government had enacted the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act in 1976, which made several changes to the Constitution, including diluting the scope and power of the judiciary. The amendment also introduced the concept of a "basic structure" of the Constitution, which cannot be amended by the Parliament.

Key Arguments:
The main issue before the Supreme Court was the validity of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act. The petitioners argued that the amendment was unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. They contended that the amendment deprived the judiciary of its power of judicial review and undermined the principle of separation of powers.

Supreme Court's Ruling:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the petitioners' arguments and struck down several provisions of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act. The Court held that the Constitution is founded on the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.

Importance of the Ruling:
The ruling in Minerva Mills case reaffirmed the significance of both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution. It emphasized that while Fundamental Rights are enforceable and provide immediate protection to individuals, Directive Principles of State Policy act as guidelines for the government to promote social justice and welfare.

The Court also reiterated that the Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that destroys or damages its basic structure. This concept of the basic structure doctrine, which was first introduced in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, was further solidified in the Minerva Mills case.

Conclusion:
The judgment in the Minerva Mills case played a crucial role in preserving the delicate balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. It emphasized the importance of both these pillars of the Indian Constitution and set the precedent for future cases related to the interpretation and application of these principles.