I.R.

Coelho
V
State of Tamil Nadu

Bench: Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice Ashok Bhan, Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice B.P. Singh,
Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice C.K. Thakker, Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, Justice Altamas
Kabir, and Justice D.K. Jain.

INTRODUCTION
One of the most notable rulings of the Supreme Court of India to date is IR Coelho v. State of
Tamil Nadu (2007). It emphasized the significance of judicial review and the judiciary's
authority in this regard. The case, also known as the 9th Schedule Case, involved an in-depth
examination of Article 31-B of the Indian Constitution. This ruling dismantled the legislative
shield that protected laws that violate fundamental rights from the judicial
review. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) was seen as a precedent to come to the
conclusion. The judiciary's supremacy as the ultimate interpreter of the law has been upheld.

NINTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION

To be emancipated from the zamindari system in India, the Constitution was amended for the
first time in 1951, when the Ninth Schedule was added to the document. It is a collection of
statutes that are immune from judicial review at the central and state levels. The Indian
Constitution's Article 31-B is explained in depth in the Ninth Schedule. It began with 13
laws directed at land reform, but it now has 284 rules governing reservation, trade, industries,
mines, and other topics.
Article 31-B reads: “Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article
31A, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions
thereof shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act,
Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights
conferred by, any provisions of this part, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order
of any court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts and Regulations shall, subject to
the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

A five-judge Constitution panel referred this matter to the Supreme Court in 1999. After the
Supreme Court knocked down the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1969 in Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972). The
Constitution's Thirty-fourth Amendment Act (1974) put the Act into the Ninth Schedule.
Furthermore, the Calcutta High Court declared Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Land Holding
Revenue Act, 1979, illegal and unreasonable. The Sixty-sixth Amendment Act also moved this
Act to the Ninth Schedule (1990). These amendments were the topic of deliberations before the
penal five-judge
The Supreme Court decision in Waman Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. was cited by the
Constitutional bench (1981). And it was held that laws incorporated into the Ninth
Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the day the Keshvananda Bharati case ruling was handed down),
by an amendment can be appealed as violating the basic structure. This is evident in Articles
14, 19, and 21, as well as the concepts that underpin them. As a result, the matter was remanded
to a bigger bench of nine judges to reconsider the Waman Rao decision and ascertain the
Supreme Court's final position.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

Whether it was appropriate for the Parliament to incorporate laws into the Ninth Schedule after
the Kesavananda Bharati judgement to grant them immunity from judicial review under the
basic structure doctrine?
To what amount does the Ninth Schedule protect the laws?
JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
In the following judgement, the Court stated that it is the judiciary's responsibility to preserve
citizens' fundamental rights. It was also pointed out that amending power Article 368 comes
with a restriction of basic structure. Any amendment could not affect or impair the essential
structure. The law that breaches the Indian Constitution's basic structure doctrine cannot be
protected. The Court explained that the goal of Article 31-B was to make legislative reforms
as easy as possible, not to cover legislation that violates people's rights, and to circumvent the
judicial review power of the Court.
The doctrine of Basic Structure is the heart of the Indian Constitution, no legislation, law, or
ordinance can override it. Fundamental Rights are a core component of the Basic Structure,
each law added to the Ninth Schedule must pass the Fundamental Rights test.
Each constitutional amendment must be evaluated independently. When analysing if a
provision is undermining or demolishing the basic structure, the 'effect and impact' test must
be used. The effect and impact test indicates that the part of the Constitution being changed
will not be a determining factor in determining its legitimacy; rather, the implications of the
amendment on the Constitution will be.
The basic structure theory compels the authority to defend the extent to which fundamental
rights have been violated. Judicial Review is used to ensure that Parliament's legislation is
consistent with basic rights. The greater the intrusion into fundamental freedoms, the more
justification, and assessment by a court is required to determine whether the intrusion was
essential and, if so, to what amount. The Court will determine the extent of the intrusion.
Those amendments made to the Constitution on or after April 24, 1973, which amend the Ninth
Schedule by including numerous laws within it, must be evaluated against the Constitution's
basic features, as expressed in Article 21 interpret with Article 14, Article 19, and the concepts
underpinning them. even if a constitutional amendment places an Act in the Ninth Schedule,
its contents could be challenged on the grounds that they undermine or harm the basic structure
if the fundamental right or rights snatched away or dissolved the basic structure doctrine.
The constitutionality Ninth Schedule has been affirmed by the court, and this will not be
contested based on the principles stated in the decision. However, any act inserted to the Ninth
Schedule following April 24, 1973, that violates Article 21 taken with Article 19 Article 14
and the fundamental principles can be contested.