Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors: A Jurisprudential Perspective

19 Pages Posted: 17 Apr 2008

See all articles by Raghav Sharma

Raghav Sharma

National Law University Jodhpur (NLUJ)

Date Written: April 16, 2008

Abstract

The divergence of majority and minority opinion within the Supreme Court of India in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors poses interesting jurisprudential issues relating to balance of interests, the decision making process of judges in areas where no pre-ordained rules are present and the peculiar place of Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), declared to be unenforceable by the Constitution of India, in the Hohfeldian right-duty paradigm. The object of this short paper is the identification and exposition of these jurisprudential issues posed by the Minerva Mills' case.

Keywords: Jurisprudence, Constitution, Supreme Court of India, Hohfeld, Roscoe Pound, Benzamin Cardozo, Directive Principles of State Policy, Minerva Mills, Basic Structure, India

Suggested Citation

Sharma, Raghav, Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors: A Jurisprudential Perspective (April 16, 2008). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1121817 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1121817

Raghav Sharma (Contact Author)

National Law University Jodhpur (NLUJ) ( email )

NH-65, Nagour Road
Kamala Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur
Mandore, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 34230
India

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
1,687
Abstract Views
9,177
Rank
19,353
PlumX Metrics