Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
E547317
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India is a landmark 1980 judgment of the Supreme Court of India that reaffirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine by limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India canonical | 1 |
| judgment in Minerva Mills v. Union of India | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5738455 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India Context triple: [basic structure doctrine, usedInCase, Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India]
-
A.
Waman Rao v. Union of India
Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
-
B.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
C.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark 1994 Supreme Court of India judgment that curtailed the arbitrary use of President’s Rule and strengthened federalism by applying the basic structure doctrine to center-state relations.
-
D.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
E.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India Target entity description: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India is a landmark 1980 judgment of the Supreme Court of India that reaffirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine by limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
A.
Waman Rao v. Union of India
Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
-
B.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
C.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark 1994 Supreme Court of India judgment that curtailed the arbitrary use of President’s Rule and strengthened federalism by applying the basic structure doctrine to center-state relations.
-
D.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
E.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (45)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Supreme Court of India judgment
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ landmark judgment ⓘ |
| benchType | Constitution Bench NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeOnBench | Y. V. Chandrachud NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citation |
(1980) 3 SCC 625
ⓘ
AIR 1980 SC 1789 ⓘ |
| concerns |
amendment of the Constitution of India
ⓘ
judicial review ⓘ limits on Parliament’s amending power ⓘ |
| constitutionalAmendmentChallenged | Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country | India ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1980 ⓘ |
| effect |
limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution
ⓘ
protected the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles ⓘ reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine ⓘ strengthened judicial review over constitutional amendments ⓘ |
| followsDoctrine | basic structure doctrine NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| geographicalJurisdiction | territory of India ⓘ |
| held |
Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited by the basic structure doctrine
ⓘ
harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure ⓘ the power of judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India ⓘ |
| heldUnconstitutional |
Section 4 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976
ⓘ
Section 55 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 ⓘ |
| importance | considered one of the leading cases on the basic structure doctrine in India ⓘ |
| judge |
A. C. Gupta
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
N. L. Untwalia NERFINISHED ⓘ P. N. Bhagwati NERFINISHED ⓘ S. Murtaza Fazal Ali NERFINISHED ⓘ Y. V. Chandrachud NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India ⓘ |
| languageOfJudgment | English ⓘ |
| legalArea |
basic structure doctrine
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ |
| numberOfJudges | 5 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Minerva Mills Ltd. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| precedent | Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedToConstitutionalArticles |
Article 31C of the Constitution of India
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Article 368 of the Constitution of India NERFINISHED ⓘ Part III of the Constitution of India ⓘ Part IV of the Constitution of India ⓘ |
| respondent | Union of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subsequentInfluence | cited in later Supreme Court of India cases on constitutional amendments ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India Description of subject: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India is a landmark 1980 judgment of the Supreme Court of India that reaffirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine by limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
judgment in Minerva Mills v. Union of India