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.