Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is limited, and amendments that destroy the basic structure of the Constitution are unconstitutional, reinforcing the principle that constitutional supremacy prevails over parliamentary sovereignty.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Minerva Mills (1980) limited amending power: (a) Context: Challenge to 42nd Amendment provisions giving Parliament unlimited amending power, DPSP primacy over FRs, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is limited; cannot destroy basic structure of Constitution, (ii) Balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) is part of basic structure; Parliament cannot give absolute primacy to one over other, (iii) Constitutional supremacy prevails over parliamentary sovereignty; Constitution, not Parliament, is supreme, (c) Applications: (i) Subsequent amendments: Must preserve basic structure; courts can strike down amendments violating core features, (ii) Judicial review: Courts retain power to examine constitutional amendments for basic structure compliance, (iii) Rights protection: Fundamental Rights forming part of basic structure remain protected against legislative excess, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional identity: Basic structure preserves core values defining Indian constitutionalism, (ii) Democratic safeguards: Prevents transient parliamentary majorities from destroying foundational democratic features, (iii) Rights protection: Ensures Fundamental Rights forming part of basic structure remain protected, (e) Illustrates constitutional supremacy: Basic structure doctrine ensures Constitution, not transient majorities, supreme; amendment power enables adaptation but cannot destroy core identity essential to constitutional democracy.