Published Paper Details:

The Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) case is a pivotal precedent in Indian constitutional law, especially regarding the Basic Structure Doctrine. The case emerged after the Forty-second Amendment (1976), which sought to curtail the judiciary's authority by rendering certain constitutional articles unamendable and diminishing judicial scrutiny. The dispute centred on the interpretation of Article 368, which regulates the amendment process, and whether Parliament has the ability to modify any section of the Constitution without limitation. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, confirmed the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) decision, which established the Basic Structure Doctrine. The idea asserts that while Parliament has extensive authority to change the Constitution, it is prohibited from modifying its basic structure, which encompasses critical elements such as the rule of law, democracy, judicial scrutiny, and the safeguarding of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court invalidated provisions of the Forty-second Amendment that aimed to modify the connection between Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Rights, emphasising the disproportionate supremacy of DPSPs over Fundamental Rights. This ruling affirmed the legal perspective that any modification impacting the fundamental aspects of the Constitution is susceptible to judicial scrutiny, regardless of its passage by a supermajority in Parliament. The case confirmed the judiciary's position as the protector of the Constitution, guaranteeing that Parliament cannot compromise its fundamental ideals.