It is obvious that the decision of the questions arising in Wamanrao's case is closely and integrally connected with the decision of the questions in Minerva Mills' case and therefore, logically as also from the point of view of aesthetics and practical pragmatics, there should be one opinion dealing with the questions in both the cases . Explore Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India case that reaffirmed limits on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and upheld judicial review. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, where Minerva Mills also questioned the constitutional validity of Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment. The company’s legal team argued that these provisions: – Disrupted the balance between Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. – Undermined the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court of India declared the 42nd Amendment, which gave parliament unfettered power to modify the constitution, to be unconstitutional in the Minerva Mills case . The case established the supremacy of the constitution over the parliament and the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles.
