Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

49. No different is the situation in the case Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in (1980) 3 Supreme Court Cases 625, which my learned brother has relied upon, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

"57. .............. The goals set out in Part IV have, therefore, to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided for by Part III. It is in this sense that Parts III and IV together constitute the core of our Constitution and, combine to form its conscience. Anything that destroys the Patna High Court CWJC No.6675 of 2016 dt.30-09-2016 balance between the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our Constitution."

(Emphasis is supplied)

50. The above observations, to my mind, leave no room for doubt that fundamental rights and Directive Principles, combined together, constitute the core of Indian Constitution and forms constitutional conscience. Anything, which destroys the balance between the two will, ipso facto, destroy the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot, therefore, be sustained. That there was deprivation of fundamental rights in Minerva Mills Ltd. (supra) cannot be disputed, because the very argument of the learned Attorney General, in the Minerva Mills Ltd. (supra), was that the deprivation of some of the fundamental rights, for the purpose of achieving the goal, set by the Directive Principles of the State Policy, cannot possibly amount to destruction of basic structure of the Constitution, but this argument did not find favour with the Supreme Court and was rejected. The relevant observations read thus:

25. In B.K. Industries v. Union of India this Court clearly held that a delegatee cannot act contrary to the basic feature of the Act stating:
"The words 'so far as may be' occurring in Section 3 (4) of the Cess Act cannot be stretched to that extent. Above all it is extremely doubtful whether the power of exemption conferred by Rule 8 can be carried to the extent of nullifying the very Act itself. It would be difficult to agree that by virtue of the power of exemption, the very levy created by Section 3 (1) can be dispensed with. Doing so would amount to nullifying the Cess Act itself. Nothing remains thereafter to be done under the Cess Act. Even the language of Patna High Court CWJC No.6675 of 2016 dt.30-09-2016 Rule 8 does not warrant such extensive power. Rule 8 contemplates merely exempting of certain exciseable goods from the whole or any part of the duty leviable on such goods. The principle of the decision of this Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala applies here perfectly. It was held therein that the power of amendment conferred by Article 368 cannot extend to scrapping of the Constitution or to altering the basic structure of the Constitution. Applying the principle of the decision, it must be held that the power of exemption cannot be utilized for, nor can it extend to, the scrapping of the very Act itself. To repeat, the power of exemption cannot be utilized to dispense with the very levy created under Section 3 of the Cess Act or for that matter under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act.

(Emphasis is supplied) 88.03. I may again refer to another Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in (1980) 3 Supreme Court Cases 625, and what is said in paragraphs 57 and 63 thereof, the relevant part whereof is quoted hereunder:

"57. .............. The goals set out in Part IV have, therefore, to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided for by Part III. It is in this sense that Parts III and IV together constitute the core of our Constitution and, combine to form its conscience. Anything that destroys the balance between the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our Constitution.