19 Pages Posted: 17 Apr 2008
Date Written: April 16, 2008
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: 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