In Minerva Mills v. Union of India reported in (1980) 3 SCC 625, the Court held that the jurisdiction of courts is not ousted merely because a question has a political colour. Every constitutional question, irrespective of the political complexion or make thereof, falls within the jurisdiction of the courts. The Court held that whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the limits of its authority or not, is for the courts to decide.
The relevant observations are as follows:
“98. It is axiomatic that if a question brought before the court is purely a political question not involving determination of any legal or constitutional right or obligation, the court would not entertain it, since the court is concerned only with adjudication of legal rights and liabilities. But merely because a question has a political complexion, that by itself is no ground why the court should shrink from performing its duty under the Constitution, if it raises an issue of constitutional determination.
There are a large number of decisions in the United States where the Supreme Court has entertained actions having a political complexion because they raised constitutional issues: vide Gomellion v. Lightfoot [364 US 339 (1960) : 5 L Ed 2d 110] and Baker v. Carr [369 US 186 (1962) : 7 L Ed 2d 663]. The controversy before the court may be political in character, but so long as it involves determination of a constitutional question, the court cannot decline to entertain it. This is also the view taken by Gupta, J., and myself in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361].
I pointed out in my judgment in that case and I still stand by it, that merely because a question has a political colour, the court cannot fold its hands in despair and declare “judicial hands off”. So long as the question is whether an authority under the Constitution has acted within the limits of its power or exceeded it, it can certainly be decided by the court. Indeed it would be its constitutional obligation to do so. I have said before, I repeat again that the Constitution is suprema lex, the paramount law of the land, and there is no department or branch of government above or beyond it. Every organ of government, be it the executive or the legislature or the judiciary, derives its authority from the Constitution and it has to act within the limits of its authority and whether it has done so or not is for the court to decide.
The court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and when there is manifestly unauthorised exercise of power under the Constitution, it is the duty of the court to intervene. Let it not be forgotten, that to this Court as much as to other branches of government, is committed the conservation and furtherance of constitutional values. The court’s task is to identify those values in the constitutional plan and to work them into life in the cases that reach the court […]”