Dalvoy Logo
Dalvoy
UPSC MainsGeneral Studies Paper IIConstitutionPractice question

42nd and 44th Amendments and Minerva Mills

Discuss the effect of 42nd and 44th Amendments on the basic structure of the Indian constitution. Explain the principles laid down in the 'Minerva Mills' case by the Supreme court of India.

DiscussExplain~250 words3 min readmedium
Attempt it first, timed · optional

Write the answer on paper, as in the exam. Start the timer, keep to the word target.

00:00/ 11 min · 250 words

Done writing? Photograph the sheet and see how it scores against this model answer, with feedback on what to fix.

Upload your answer sheet

How to approach

Start by linking the 42nd and 44th Constitutional Amendment Acts to the evolution and defense of the Basic Structure doctrine. In the body, delineate how the 42nd Amendment undermined core constitutional features and how the 44th Amendment restored institutional balance, followed by an explanation of the core principles articulated in the Minerva Mills (1980) ruling. Conclude with the enduring significance of constitutional supremacy and checks and balances.

Model answer

427 words

Introduction

The Basic Structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), acts as a fundamental constitutional guardrail against executive and legislative overreach. The 42nd and 44th Constitutional Amendment Acts (CAAs) represent a historical conflict and subsequent reconciliation regarding the boundaries of parliamentary amending power and constitutional supremacy.

Effects of the 42nd and 44th Amendments on the Basic Structure

The constitutional amendments of the late 1970s radically altered the balance between Parliament, the judiciary, and citizen rights:

  • 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1976) – Attempted Subversion:
    • Unlimited Amending Power: Section 55 inserted Clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368, claiming absolute constituent power for Parliament and explicitly ousting judicial review over constitutional amendments.
    • Primacy of DPSPs over Fundamental Rights: Section 4 expanded the scope of Article 31C to accord all Directive Principles of State Policy precedence over Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19.
    • Dilution of Judicial Checks: Curtailed the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 and bypassed constitutional courts through sweeping tribunalisation provisions under Articles 323A and 323B.
  • 44th Constitutional Amendment Act (1978) – Restoration of Safeguards:
    • Emergency Safeguards: Replaced the subjective term 'internal disturbance' with 'armed rebellion' under Article 352, and amended Article 359 to make Articles 20 and 21 non-suspendable even during a national emergency.
    • Institutional Balance: Restored the comprehensive writ jurisdictions of constitutional courts, thereby re-establishing the primacy of judicial review as an effective check.

Principles Laid Down in the Minerva Mills Case (1980)

In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down key authoritarian provisions of the 42nd Amendment, laying down cardinal constitutional principles:

  • Judicial Review as an Inviolable Basic Feature: The Court invalidated Section 55 (Article 368(4) and (5)), affirming that judicial review cannot be ousted and remains an essential feature to prevent Parliament from exercising unbridled constituent power.
  • Limited Amending Power: The Court ruled that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is itself a limited power under Article 368. Parliament cannot, under the exercise of that limited power, expand its authority into an absolute power to repeal or rewrite the Constitution.
  • Harmonious Construction: Striking down the blanket expansion of Article 31C (Section 4), the Court held that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are the 'two wheels of a chariot'. Upsetting this delicate balance by subordinating Fundamental Rights to Directive Principles fundamentally destroys the basic structure.

Conclusion

The corrective mechanism of the 44th Amendment combined with the judicial clarity of the Minerva Mills judgment successfully insulated the Indian Constitution from legislative supremacy, cementing constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, and the separation of powers as permanent bedrocks of the polity.

Key facts to remember

case study
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)

The Supreme Court invalidated Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, ruling that a limited amending power and the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are essential constituents of the basic structure.

definition
Harmonious Construction

A canon of constitutional interpretation holding that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles must be construed together as complementary goals rather than mutually exclusive or hierarchical mandates.

scheme
Article 368 Clauses (4) and (5)

Clauses introduced by the 42nd Amendment intended to bar any constitutional amendment from being questioned in a court of law on any ground, later struck down in Minerva Mills.

Frequently asked questions

Why is Parliament's amending power considered limited under Article 368?

As established in Minerva Mills, the amending power is conferred by the Constitution itself. A creature of the Constitution cannot claim absolute or unlimited power to destroy the fundamental framework that grants it that very authority.

← All questions on this topic (64)