This article is authored by Gauri Bansal and edited by Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, AOR and Adv. Prapti Singh.
SC/0075/1980
FACTS
Minerva Mills Ltd. was a private textile company. In August 1970, the Government of India ordered an investigation of the company for low production under the Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951. On 19 October 1971, the Government authorized the National Textile Corporation Ltd, to take over the management of Minerva Mills on the ground that its affairs were being managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest. The company was then nationalized under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974.
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act. They also challenged the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
Whether the amendments introduced by Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976 damage the basic structure of the Constitution?
HELD
Section 4 and 55 of the Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 introduced a number of changes. Section 4 amended Article 31C while Section 55 inserted Clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368 of the Constitution Clause 5 purports to remove all limitations on the amending power while clause (4) deprives the Courts of their power to call in question any amendment of the Constitution
The Supreme Court held both the newly inserted douses (4) and (5) of Article 368 (inserted vide Section 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment) as unconstitutional and invalid. They were found to transgress the limitations imposed on the parliament’s power to amend by the decision of this Court in Keshavanand Bharati case. It held that the Parliament could not extend its amending powers in order to destroy the basic and essential features of the Constitution
The Court held Three Articles of our Constitution, and only three stand between the heaven of freedom into which Tagore wanted his country to awoke and the abyss of unrestrained power. They are Articles 14, 19 and 21″
Part II and IV stand on the same) pedestal. None can be prioritized over the other. The harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is on essential feature of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
“The Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is on essential feature of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
