I.R. Coelho Case (2007)
– Ninth Schedule and Basic Structure
Background of the Case
Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule were introduced to protect certain laws—initially land reform laws—from being invalidated for violating Fundamental Rights.
Over time:
- The Ninth Schedule became a tool to shield diverse laws from judicial scrutiny
- This raised a constitutional concern:
Can Parliament place any law beyond judicial review merely by inserting it into the Ninth Schedule?
The validity of such immunity, especially after the Basic Structure doctrine (1973), was questioned in I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Can post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws be immune from judicial review?
- Does Article 31B override the Basic Structure doctrine?
- What tests should courts apply while reviewing Ninth Schedule laws?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
A nine-judge Constitution Bench delivered a definitive ruling.
(a) Reaffirmation of Waman Rao (1980)
The Court reaffirmed that:
- All constitutional amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 → Which insert laws into the Ninth Schedule → Are open to judicial review
Thus, Ninth Schedule is not above the Constitution.
(b) Basic Structure Doctrine Applies Fully
The Court held that:
- Parliament cannot use Article 31B to →Destroy or damage the Basic Structure
- Judicial review itself is a basic feature
Therefore → Any Ninth Schedule law that violates basic structure can be struck down
(c) Nature of Judicial Review – What Is Tested?
The Court clarified that:
- Courts will not test mere violation of Fundamental Rights
- Instead, they will examine:
- Whether the law damages the basic structure
Thus, Fundamental Rights are part of the Basic Structure in their essential content.
(d) Tests Laid Down by the Court
The Court laid down guiding principles for review:
- Whether the Ninth Schedule law
- Abrogates or destroys rights forming part of the Basic Structure
- Undermines → Equality, Rule of law, Judicial review, Separation of powers
If yes → The law is unconstitutional despite being in the Ninth Schedule
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Ended the idea of absolute immunity under Article 31B
- Strengthened constitutional supremacy
- Harmonised:
- Parliamentary power
- Judicial review
- Preserved substantive Fundamental Rights
Impact of the Judgement
- Prevented misuse of the Ninth Schedule
- Ensured that → Constitutional amendments cannot be used to neutralise constitutional limitations
- Consolidated the Basic Structure doctrine as the final arbiter
Place in Constitutional Evolution
| Case | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Basic Structure doctrine |
| Waman Rao (1980) | Cut-off date fixed |
| I.R. Coelho (2007) | Ninth Schedule fully reviewable |
Summary
The I.R. Coelho Case (2007) held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are subject to judicial review, and can be struck down if they damage the Basic Structure, reaffirming that no part of the Constitution is above constitutional supremacy.