LANDMARK CASE
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
(1980) 3 SCC 625 · Supreme Court of India · Constitutional law
At a glance
- Citation: (1980) 3 SCC 625
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Constitutional law
- In one line: No. Limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure, and the balance between Parts III and IV must be kept.
1 Facts
The 42nd Amendment tried to make constitutional amendments immune from review and gave Directive Principles priority over fundamental rights.
2 Issue
Can Parliament remove limits on its amending power?
3 What the court decided
No. Limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure, and the balance between Parts III and IV must be kept.
4 Why it matters
It reinforced Kesavananda and protected judicial review.
5 Think about it
Why is the balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles part of the basic structure?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Constitutional law
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
- ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
- Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722
- Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of IndiaMiranda v. Arizona →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.