Quick answer
No. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down Section 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, which had added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368 to make amendments immune from judicial review and to declare Parliament's amending power unlimited. The Court held that limited amending power and judicial review are part of the basic structure, and that Parliament cannot turn a limited power into an unlimited one. It also struck down Section 4 of the same Amendment, which had extended Article 31C to all Directive Principles, because harmony between Part III and Part IV is itself a basic feature.
The case
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625, AIR 1980 SC 1789, Supreme Court of India, five judges: Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. (for himself, A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia and P.S. Kailasam, JJ.) and P.N. Bhagwati, J. (partly dissenting). The majority announced its conclusion in an order of 9 May 1980, declaring Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment void, and gave its reasons on 31 July 1980. Bhagwati J. declined to join an order without reasons and set out his views in a separate opinion.
What was struck down and why
- Article 368(5): declared that there was "no limitation whatever" on Parliament's amending power. The majority held that a limited amending power is a basic feature, and the donee (holder) of a limited power cannot use it to make that power unlimited. In its words, the power to destroy is not a power to amend.
- Article 368(4): barred courts from questioning any amendment on any ground. This removed judicial review, which is part of the basic structure.
- Amended Article 31C: Article 31C protected laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c). The 42nd Amendment extended this shield to laws giving effect to any Directive Principle, so that no such law could be challenged as violating Article 14 or Article 19. The majority held that giving Part IV absolute primacy over Part III destroys the balance between them, which is part of the basic structure.
Majority and Bhagwati J. compared
| Issue | Majority (Chandrachud C.J.) | Bhagwati J. |
|---|---|---|
| Article 368(4) and (5) | Unconstitutional | Unconstitutional |
| Amended Article 31C (all Directive Principles) | Unconstitutional; destroys Part III and Part IV balance | Valid, if read narrowly to protect only laws with a real and substantial connection to a Directive Principle |
Suppose Parliament passes an amendment saying that any law declared to implement any Directive Principle cannot be challenged under Articles 14 or 19, and that no court may examine any constitutional amendment. A State then uses such a law to take over Aadil's textile mill on arbitrary terms, and his challenge under Article 14 is barred. Under Minerva Mills, both parts of the amendment would fail: one destroys the balance between rights and directives, and the other removes judicial review.
Current law note
Minerva Mills applied the basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the first part of the original Article 31C had been upheld. Whether that original Article 31C survived after Minerva Mills was later disputed. In Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (5 November 2024), a nine-judge bench held that "Article 31C to the extent that it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati ... remains in force". So today Article 31C protects laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c) only, not all Directive Principles.
Exam point
Minerva Mills (1980): limited amending power, judicial review and harmony between Part III and Part IV are basic features; Article 368(4) and (5) and the 42nd Amendment's extension of Article 31C were struck down.
