Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj), Bhagwati, P.N., Gupta, A.C., Untwalia, N.L., Kailasam, P.S.
Facts:
Petitioner No 1 which is a limited company owned a textile undertaking called Minerva Mills situated in the State of Karnataka. This sick textile mill was nationalised and taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, which was inserted into the 9th Schedule by the 39th Amendment. This Act was questioned along with the 42nd Amendment and the 25th Amendment both of which protected this Act.
Issue:
Whether the 42nd Amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution?
Judgement:
It said that Amending power is limited and cannot be transformed into unlimited power because limited amending power is part of the basic structure. Thus Clause (5) was ultra vires. Also judicial review is part of basic structure. So Clause (4) is unconstitutional. However, opinion was split as regards the expansion of Article 31C.
Majority Opinion (Chandrachud) (4:1):
Both Part III and IV are the core values, conscience of the Constitution and they bring about the social revolution contemplated in the Constitution. There is a relation between the two of balance and harmony and this balance cannot be changed or destroyed by amendment. The Constitution embodied goals in Part IV and means in Part III. The State can achieve these goals only by not abrogating the Constitutional means. That the end justifies the means is not part of the Indian Constitutional jurisprudence. Thus DPSP have to be achieved within the framework of the Fundamental Rights.
Thus, the 42nd Amendment brings out a change that is more fundamental than the 25th Amendment. The difference between the two, of course, is quantitative rather than qualitative. One or thousand laws, if any is given immunity on grounds of implementing even one DPSP, it won’t matter. No DPSP can be given primacy over the Fundamental Rights because this destroys the constitutional harmony and balance between Part III and Part IV.
Minority (Bhagwati):
Implementation of DPSP by laws will not affect Fundamental Rights. It will only promote substantive equality because right now Fundamental Rights are meaningless to most of the population. To make them more meaningful, Fundamental Rights must be interpreted in the framework of the DPSP and not the other way round. The spirit of implementation of DPSP will not be in violation of Fundamental Rights because it will promote substantive equality. (social and economic equality)
