42nd amendment in the Constitution was void

Barathkumar K M | Sastra Deemed to be University Thanjavur | 8th July 2020

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

Facts:

The petitioner (Minerva Mills) was an industry, involved in the production of silks. The Central Government had a doubt about the quality of their products. So the Central Government made a committee to enquire of Minerva Mills under sec. 15 of the Industries Development and Regulations Act. In this case, the petitioner challenged the 42^nd amendment in the Constitution. The 42^nd amendment brought many changes in the Constitution. It was implemented during the emergency period (25 June 1975-21 March 1977). It was the attempt to reduce the power of the Supreme Court and the High Court and it also laid down the Fundamental Duties of the Constitution. 

Issue:

• Whether the 42^nd amendment in the Constitution was valid?

Legal Provision:

Article 368 of the Constitution

Referred cases:

1. Indira Gandhi Nehru vs. Raj Narain
2. Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala

Petitioner’s contention: 

The petitioner contended that the basic structure of the Constitution was changed due to the 42^nd amendment. The power of the parliament which was provided under article 368 of the Constitution was limited. The parliament had no power to change the basic structure of the Constitution. 

Respondent’s contention:

The Respondent contended that if the amendment follows the DPSP (Directive Principle of State Policy) then it doesn’t violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The parliament had the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

Observation:

It was observed that in Kesavananda Bharathi vs. State of Kerala, the court held that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be amended and in Indira Gandhi Nehru vs. Raj Narain, the court held that sec. 55 of the Amendment Act was unconstitutional. While enacting a Law the ‘Doctrine of Pith and Substance’ should be considered. The 42^nd amendment in the Constitution brought many changes in the basic structure of the Constitution.

Judgment:

The five Judges bench held that the power of the parliament provided under Article 368 of the Constitution has only limited scope. Thus, the court by 4:1 majority held that sec 4 and 55 of the Amendment Act and 42^nd amendment in the Constitution was held as unconstitutional.