| 词条 | Minerva Mills v. Union of India |
| 释义 |
| Litigants = Minerva Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India | ArgueDate = | ArgueYear = | DecideDate = 31 July | DecideYear = 1980 | FullName = Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs Union Of India and Ors. | USVol = | USPage = | Citation = AIR 1980 SC 1789 | Prior = | Subsequent = | Holding = | Majority = Y.V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice of India); A.C. Gupta; N.L. Untwalia; P.S. Kailasam | JoinMajority = | Concurrence = | JoinConcurrence= | Concurrence2 = | JoinConcurrence2 = | Concurrence/Dissent = | JoinConcurrence/Dissent = | Dissent = P.N. Bhagwati | JoinDissent = | Dissent2 = | JoinDissent2 = | LawsApplied = Constitution of India }}Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India[1] that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India.[2] In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The court unanimously ruled that the power of the parliament to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself an unlimited power. In addition, a majority of the court also held that the parliament's power to amend is not a power to destroy. Hence the parliament cannot emasculate the fundamental rights of individuals, including the right to liberty and equality.[3] The ruling struck down section 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 enacted during the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.[4]. Judgement(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this article. The above clauses were unanimously ruled as unconstitutional. Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud explained in his opinion that since, as had been previously held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the power of Parliament to amend the constitution was limited, it could not by amending the constitution convert this limited power into an unlimited power (as it had purported to do by the 42nd amendment). {{quotation|Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed. In other words, Parliament can not, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features. The donee of a limited power cannot be the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one.[5]}}Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, had amended Article 31C of the Constitution to accord precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy articulated in Part IV of the Constitution over the Fundamental Rights of individuals articulated in Part III of Indian Constitution. By a verdict of 4-1, with Justice P.N. Bhagwati dissenting, the court held section 4 of the 42nd Amendment to be unconstitutional.[2] Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote: {{quotation|Three Articles of our Constitution, and only three, stand between the heaven of freedom into which Tagore wanted his country to awake and the abyss of unrestrained power. They are Articles 14, 19 and 21. Article 31C has removed two sides of that golden triangle which affords to the people of this country an assurance that the promise held forth by the preamble will be performed by ushering an egalitarian era through the discipline of fundamental rights, that is, without emasculation of the rights to liberty and equality which alone can help preserve the dignity of the individual.[3]}}References1. ^{{cite web|url=http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/|title=Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union Of India and Ors.|publisher=Indian Kanoon|accessdate=2012-07-17}} 2. ^1 {{cite web|ssrn=1121817|title=Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors: A Jurisprudential Perspective|author=Raghav Sharma|publisher=Social Science Research Network|date=2008-04-16|accessdate=2012-07-17}} 3. ^1 {{cite web|url=http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm |title=Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. |publisher=Open Archive |accessdate=2012-07-17 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120404195325/http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm |archivedate=2012-04-04 |df= }} 4. ^{{cite web | last = Hart | first = Henry C. | authorlink = | title = The Indian Constitution: Political Development and Decay | work = Asia Survey, Vol. 20, No. 4, Apr., 1980 | publisher = University of California Press | date = April 1980 | jstor = i345360 | doi = }} 5. ^{{cite book|title=Constitution Amendment in India|date=1 January 1995|publisher=Northern Book Centre|location=New Delhi|pages=12|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4yp0yhzdKWIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false|edition=Sixth|editor=R.C. Bhardwaj|accessdate=25 November 2013}} 5 : Indian constitutional case law|1980 in case law|Supreme Court of India cases|1980 in India|The Emergency (India) |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。