Case Analysis: Minerva Mills v. Union of India
Minerva Mills case 1980 was a one of the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India. The “Basic Structure” doctrine is the judge-made doctrine whereby certain features of the Constitution of India are beyond the limit of the powers of amendment of the Parliament of India. No part of the constitution may be so amended by Article-368 so as to “alter the basic structure” of the Constitution. Neither the Doctrine of Basic Structure nor the basic features of the Constitution have been explicitly mentioned in the constitution of India. The phrase “Basic Structure” was introduced for the first time by M.K. Nambiar and other counsels while arguing for the petitioners in the Golaknath v. State of …show more content…
In Minerva Mills , said that The fundamental rights “are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end.” The end is specified in the directive principles. It was further observed in the same case that the fundamental rights and directive principles together “constitute the core of commitment to social revolution and they, together, are the conscience of the constitution.” The Indian constitution is founded on the bedrock of “balance” between the two. “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 an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution.” The fundamental rights “are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end.” The end is specified in directive principles. On the other hand, the goals set out in directive principles are to be achieved without abrogating the fundamental rights. “It is in this sense” that fundamental rights and directive principles “together constitute the core of our constitution and combine to form its conscience. Anything that destroys the balance between the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our …show more content…
Thus, the integrative approach towards fundamental rights and directive principles, or that “fundamental rights must be construed in the light of the directive principle” has been advocated by the Supreme Court time and again. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar , the Supreme Court relied on Art. 39 to decide that the law to abolish Zamindari had been enacted for a “Public” purpose within the meaning of Art. 31. On the same argument, directive principles have also come to be regarded as relevant for considering ‘reasonableness’ of restrictions under Art. 19. A restriction promoting any of the objectives of the directive principles could be regarded as reasonable. Thus, Art. 47 which directs the state to bring about prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks except for medical purposes could be taken into account while considering the reasonableness of a prohibition law under Art. 19. Art. 47 relate the idea of prohibition to public
Minerva Mills case 1980 was a one of the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India. The “Basic Structure” doctrine is the judge-made doctrine whereby certain features of the Constitution of India are beyond the limit of the powers of amendment of the Parliament of India. No part of the constitution may be so amended by Article-368 so as to “alter the basic structure” of the Constitution. Neither the Doctrine of Basic Structure nor the basic features of the Constitution have been explicitly mentioned in the constitution of India. The phrase “Basic Structure” was introduced for the first time by M.K. Nambiar and other counsels while arguing for the petitioners in the Golaknath v. State of …show more content…
In Minerva Mills , said that The fundamental rights “are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end.” The end is specified in the directive principles. It was further observed in the same case that the fundamental rights and directive principles together “constitute the core of commitment to social revolution and they, together, are the conscience of the constitution.” The Indian constitution is founded on the bedrock of “balance” between the two. “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 an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution.” The fundamental rights “are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end.” The end is specified in directive principles. On the other hand, the goals set out in directive principles are to be achieved without abrogating the fundamental rights. “It is in this sense” that fundamental rights and directive principles “together constitute the core of our constitution and combine to form its conscience. Anything that destroys the balance between the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our …show more content…
Thus, the integrative approach towards fundamental rights and directive principles, or that “fundamental rights must be construed in the light of the directive principle” has been advocated by the Supreme Court time and again. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar , the Supreme Court relied on Art. 39 to decide that the law to abolish Zamindari had been enacted for a “Public” purpose within the meaning of Art. 31. On the same argument, directive principles have also come to be regarded as relevant for considering ‘reasonableness’ of restrictions under Art. 19. A restriction promoting any of the objectives of the directive principles could be regarded as reasonable. Thus, Art. 47 which directs the state to bring about prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks except for medical purposes could be taken into account while considering the reasonableness of a prohibition law under Art. 19. Art. 47 relate the idea of prohibition to public