Constitution which had been introduced into the Constitutio·n by the Constitution Twenty"fifth Amendment Act 1971 expressly provided that "Notwithst.anding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in cl.(b) or cl.(c) of Art. 39 shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article• 14, article 19 or article 31". The Sick Textiles (Undertakings) Nationalisation Act 1974 was passed, we may mention here, before the Constitution Forty Second Amendment Act came into force. In order, . therefore, to challenge the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 on the,groµnd of inconsistency or abridgement or taking away of the Fundamental Rights conferred· by Art. 14 or Art. !9, it was ·necessary for the petitioners to challenge the Constitutional validity of the Constitution Twenty-fifth Amendment Act, 197.1 by which Art. 31C was first introduced into.the Constitution. That, however, . was not open to the petitioners because of the decision of this Court in Keshavananda Bharati's case. It was so conceded too by the . Learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner in the Minerva Mills case. The counsel who appeared, however, chose to question the 0 constitutionai validity of Section 4 of· the Constitution Forty.second Amendment Act, 1976 by which the immunity afforded by Art. 3JC was extended by replacing the words "the principles specified in cl. (b) or cl. (c) of Art. 39" by the words "all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV". No question regarding the constitutionar validity of s. 4 of the Constitutional Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976 arose for consideration in the case, firstly, because the immunity from attack given to a law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the prin°ciples specified in cl. (b) or cl. (cl of Art. 39, was given by the Constitution Twenty-fifth Amendment Act 1971 itself and secondly because the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) 'Aci had been enacted before the Constitution .Forty-second Am·endment Act, 1976. Yet, counsel successfully persuaded the Court to go iotQ the question of the validity of s. 4 of the Constitution Forty·secood' Amendment Act. An objection was raised .before the Court by the learned Attorney General. that the Court should not concern itself with .hypothetical or academic que~tions. The objection was overruled on the ground t.hat the Forty·second Amendment was there for anyone to see and that the question raised was an important one dealing with, not an ordinary law, but, a constitutional amendment which had been brought into
