Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, 1973

Background

The state government of Kerala brought the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which restricted the property rights of citizens. The state government utilized the provisions of the act to take control of the land belonging to Edneer Mutt, a Hindu monastic institution situated in Kerala, India. As a result of this takeover, the Mutt’s revenues decreased, leading to difficulties in managing its operations. The head of the Mutt, Shri Kesavananda Bharati, contested this acquisition by filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Land Reform Act of 1963. The act was challenged on the basis that it infringes upon Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution.. 

Also to overcome the Golaknath judgment the parliament had come up with 24th, 25th and 29th Amendment Act. The constitutional validity of these amendments was also taken up by the court. 

Judgment

The Judgment dealt with two major questions: 

Can the Parliament amend the Fundamental rights? 

• The Court reversed its decision in the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case and declared the 24th constitutional amendment partially valid, which stated that Parliament can modify any part of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights.. 

What is the scope of Parliament power when it comes to amending the constitution? 

• The court introduced the basic structure doctrine, which asserted that while Parliament has the authority to amend the constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental characteristics. Basic features are those features which are fundamental to the constitution and amending them would render the constitution spiritless. The court while giving the Judgment held that no exhaustive list exists on which features will be part of basic structure of the constitution. In the Judgment, an indicative list was given by the courts which included; Supremacy of the Constitution, Unity and sovereignty of India, Democratic and republican forms of government, Federal and Secular character of the Constitution, Separation of power as part of the basic structure. This list has kept expanding and is consistently evolving through court judgments. The court deemed the 25th and 29th constitutional amendments to be valid.

Aftermath 

• The Government responded to the judgment by bringing major changes in the constitution. The 42nd constitutional amendment was passed by the government which completely changed the relationship between the fundamental rights and Directive Principles of state policy. The provisions of Article 31C were changed and Article 14, 19 and 31 was made subservient to all the directive principles (extending from Article 39 (a) and Article 39 (b)). Subsequently, the 44th constitutional amendment removed the right to property, reclassifying it as a legal right under Article 300 A. 

Minerva mills vs Union of India, 1980

Background

• Minerva mills was a textile company in the state of Karnataka. The company was seeing a significant downfall in its production. Under the provisions of the Industries Act, 1951 the Central government appointed a committee to carry out investigations into the affairs of the company. After the committee report the government permitted National textile corporation limited to take over the operations of Minerva mills and the company was nationalised. This nationalisation was done under the provisions of Nationalisation act of 1974 [Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974]. This was challenged in the high court and eventually in the Supreme court by writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution. 

Two major clauses i.e. clause 4 and 5 of the 42nd constitutional amendment act were challenged on the basis that they destroy the basic structure of the constitution. Clause 4 had amended Article 31 C of the constitution to accord precedence to the Directive principles over the Fundamental rights given in the constitution. While clause 5 gave the parliament unlimited constituent power to bring amendment to the constitution. 

Judgment

The court addressed two significant issues in its ruling

To what extent does the addition to Article 31C and Article 368 into the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 impair the basic structure doctrine?

• The court criticized the newly added provisions to Article 368.The court held the provisions, which give limitless amending power to the Parliament, as unconstitutional. The court held that the constitution had conferred limited amending power to the Parliament. This restricted amending power is recognized as a fundamental feature of the Indian constitution. The Parliament cannot expand its amending power, to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the constitution or destroy its basic structure. Parliament while exercising this limited amendment power cannot convert it into unlimited one. The court notably condemned clauses 4 and 5 of Article 368, with one clause interfering with Parliament’s amending authority, while the other curtailed the power of judicial review. These clauses aimed to grant Parliament unlimited power while simultaneously restricting the scope and authority of Judicial Review, which could lead to serious abuse of power and clearly undermine the democratic principles of Indian governance. 

If the Directive Principle of state policy takes precedence over the Fundamental Right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution?

• The court ensured a balance between DPSP and Fundamental Rights It was determined that this balance is an inherent part of the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution. The provisions that made Articles 14, 19, and 31 subordinate to all directive principles were annulled.. The court reiterated the importance and necessity of the Golden Triangle i.e Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 and condemned Article 31 C as it robbed the two sides of this triangle. 

The Minerva Mills case is regarded as a landmark Judgment as it was the first case which applied and evolved the doctrine of basic structure given in the Kesavananda Bharati case. This case helped in setting up a precedent for all future cases where similar constitutional issues were involved. The Supreme court emerged victorious in the indirect battle with the Parliament and was able to safeguard the basic structure of the Indian constitution.