Constitution of India Forty Second Amendment Act, Sections 4 and 55- Whether the Sections are beyond the amending· power of' the Parliament under  Article 368 of the Constitution and· therefore void-Whether the Directive Principles of State policy contained in Part iv· of the Constitution can have primacy over the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution-Constitution of India Articles 14, 19, 31C, 38 and 368.

Minerva Mills Ltd. is a limited company dealing in textiles. On August 20, 1970 the Central Government appointed a committee under section 15 of the Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951 to make a fill and complete-- investigation of the affairs of the Minerva Mills Ltd. as it was of the opinion that there had been or was likely to be substantial' fall' in the ·volume of production·. The said Committee submitted its report to the Central Government in January 1971, on the basis of which the Central Government passed an order dated October 19, 1971 under section 18A of the 1951' Act, authorising_c the National Textile Corporation Ltd., to take over the management of the Mills on the ground that its affairs are being managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest. This undertaking was nationalised and taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the· Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 and o,f the· order dated October 19, 1971, the constitutionality--of the Constitution (Thirty Ninth Amendment) Act which inserted the impugned Nationalisation Act as Entry 105 in. the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, the validity of Article 31B of the Constitution and finally the constitutionality-- of sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976. on the ratio of the majority judgment in Kesavananda Bharati's case, namely, though by Article 368 of the Constitution Parliament is given the power to amend the Constitution, that power cannot be exercised so as to damage the  basic features of the Constitution or so as to destroy its basic structure.

Opining that sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act are void and beyond the amending power of the Parliament the Court by majority (Per Chandrachud.  C.J .. on behalf of himself, A. C. Gupta. N. L. Untwalia & P. S. Kailasam, JJ.)