Minerva Mills Case Practice Questions
20 free Minerva Mills Case practice questions for the Indian Polity. Tap an option to answer — you get instant feedback, the correct answer, and a detailed explanation for every question.
In which year was the landmark Minerva Mills v. Union of India case decided by the Supreme Court?
- A 1973
- B 1975
- C 1980
- D 1985
Correct answer: 1980
The Minerva Mills case was decided in 1980. It served as a crucial reaffirmation of the Basic Structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
Which Constitutional Amendment Act was primarily challenged in the Minerva Mills case?
- A 24th Amendment Act
- B 25th Amendment Act
- C 42nd Amendment Act
- D 44th Amendment Act
Correct answer: 42nd Amendment Act
The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, often called the 'Mini-Constitution', was the primary target of the challenge. The court struck down sections that sought to give Parliament unlimited amending power.
Which section of the 42nd Amendment Act, which sought to exclude judicial review of constitutional amendments, was struck down in this case?
- A Section 4
- B Section 31
- C Section 42
- D Section 55
Correct answer: Section 55
Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment inserted clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368. These clauses aimed to remove all limitations on the amending power of Parliament and bar courts from questioning them.
The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills held that 'harmony and balance' between which two parts of the Constitution is a basic feature?
- A Part III and Part IV
- B Part IV and Part V
- C Part III and Part IX
- D Part II and Part III
Correct answer: Part III and Part IV
The court ruled that Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) are like two wheels of a chariot. Sacrificing one for the other would violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Which Article's expansion by the 42nd Amendment was restricted by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case?
- A Article 31A
- B Article 31B
- C Article 32
- D Article 31C
Correct answer: Article 31C
The 42nd Amendment tried to extend the protection of Article 31C to all Directive Principles. The court struck this down, restoring Article 31C to its original status of protecting only Articles 39(b) and 39(c).
Who was the Chief Justice of India who headed the bench in the Minerva Mills case?
- A CJI P.N. Bhagwati
- B CJI M.H. Beg
- C CJI R.S. Pathak
- D CJI Y.V. Chandrachud
Correct answer: CJI Y.V. Chandrachud
Justice Y.V. Chandrachud led the five-judge Constitution Bench. He authored the majority opinion that reinforced the limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
The Minerva Mills case is famous for strengthening which legal doctrine?
- A Doctrine of Basic Structure
- B Doctrine of Eclipse
- C Doctrine of Severability
- D Doctrine of Pith and Substance
Correct answer: Doctrine of Basic Structure
The judgment is a cornerstone of the Basic Structure doctrine. It clarified that Parliament cannot use its limited amending power to grant itself unlimited power.
What did the Supreme Court say regarding the 'limited amending power' of Parliament?
- A It is a basic feature of the Constitution.
- B It can be expanded to become absolute power.
- C It does not exist under Article 368.
- D It only applies to the Preamble.
Correct answer: It is a basic feature of the Constitution.
The court famously stated that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature. Therefore, Parliament cannot use that limited power to convert it into an unlimited one.
Which of the following was the lead petitioner in this landmark case?
- A A textile company
- B A religious monastery
- C A political party
- D A trade union
Correct answer: A textile company
Minerva Mills was a textile company in Karnataka. The case arose when the central government took over the management of the mill under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974.
In the Minerva Mills case, which judge delivered a partially dissenting opinion regarding the validity of Section 4?
- A Justice P.N. Bhagwati
- B Justice H.R. Khanna
- C Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
- D Justice A.C. Gupta
Correct answer: Justice P.N. Bhagwati
Justice P.N. Bhagwati agreed with the majority on striking down Section 55 but dissented on Section 4. He believed the amendment to Article 31C did not damage the basic structure.
Clause (5) of Article 368, inserted by the 42nd Amendment and struck down in Minerva Mills, declared that:
- A Parliament's amending power has no limitation.
- B Fundamental Rights are absolutely supreme.
- C The Preamble is not part of the Constitution.
- D State emergencies cannot ever be legally challenged.
Correct answer: Parliament's amending power has no limitation.
Clause (5) stated there would be no limitation on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The court struck it down as it sought to destroy the 'basic structure' by removing judicial review.
The Minerva Mills judgment explicitly stated that the Constitution is supreme, and not the ________.
- A Parliament
- B Judiciary
- C President
- D People
Correct answer: Parliament
The court emphasized Constitutional Supremacy. Since Parliament derives its power from the Constitution, it must act within the limits set by the Constitution.
The Minerva Mills case dealt with the validity of the nationalization of a sick industrial undertaking under which act?
- A Essential Commodities Act, 1955
- B Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974
- C Companies Act, 1956
- D Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
Correct answer: Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974
The petitioners challenged the Nationalisation Act of 1974 under which the government took over Minerva Mills. This led to the wider challenge against the 42nd Amendment.
Which of the following was restored to its pre-1976 status by the Minerva Mills judgment?
- A Article 31C
- B Article 14
- C Article 19
- D Article 21
Correct answer: Article 31C
By striking down Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, the court restored Article 31C to its original form. This meant only laws implementing Article 39(b) and (c) remained protected from Articles 14 and 19.
According to the Minerva Mills majority, giving absolute primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights would:
- A Help achieve social justice faster
- B Subvert the constitution
- C Be a valid exercise of power
- D Strengthen democracy
Correct answer: Subvert the constitution
The court held that subverting Fundamental Rights to Directive Principles completely would destroy the fundamental identity of the Constitution. Both must be implemented harmoniously.
Under the Minerva Mills ruling, Judicial Review was identified as:
- A An optional power of the Supreme Court
- B A part of the Basic Structure
- C A violation of Parliamentary sovereignty
- D A temporary provision
Correct answer: A part of the Basic Structure
The court ruled that the power of judicial review is an essential feature. Any amendment that takes away the power of the courts to review constitutional amendments is void.
The decision in Minerva Mills essentially overruled the reasoning found in which earlier period's legislative intent?
- A The Emergency period
- B The colonial era
- C The Constituent Assembly debates
- D The Post-Independence era
Correct answer: The Emergency period
The 42nd Amendment was passed during the Emergency (1975-1977). The Minerva Mills case corrected the imbalances created during that period by restoring the power of the judiciary.
Which Article of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs, which was indirectly protected in Minerva Mills?
- A Article 226
- B Article 32
- C Article 131
- D Article 21
Correct answer: Article 32
Article 32 is the Right to Constitutional Remedies. By protecting judicial review as a basic feature, the court ensured that the power to protect rights under Article 32 remains intact.
How many judges were on the bench for the Minerva Mills case?
- A 7
- B 13
- C 5
- D 9
Correct answer: 5
The case was heard by a 5-judge Constitution Bench. While smaller than the Kesavananda bench, its impact on constitutional law was equally profound.
The Minerva Mills case ensured that Article 368 does not enable Parliament to:
- A Amend the Preamble
- B Alter the federal structure
- C Destroy the Basic Structure
- D Increase the number of judges
Correct answer: Destroy the Basic Structure
The core takeaway was that Article 368 is a power given by the Constitution and cannot be used to destroy the very document that grants the power. The 'Basic Structure' is the ultimate limit.