I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu

Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule were added by the First Amendment in 1951. Article 31B says that an Act placed in the Ninth Schedule will not become void merely because it conflicts with a fundamental right in Part III. Its original purpose was to protect land reform laws. Over time many other kinds of laws were added, and according to the lecture it now contains about 284 laws.

Tamil Nadu enacted the Gudalur Janmam Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1969. Janmam estates were lands in the Gudalur area of the Nilgiris, including large forest areas. The Act brought these lands, including the forest land, under State control. In 1972, in the Balmadies Plantations case, the Supreme Court struck down the forest-related part of the Act. It held that acquiring forest land was not agrarian reform (reform relating to agricultural land), so it could not be protected by Article 31A.

In 1974, the Thirty-fourth Amendment placed the entire Act in the Ninth Schedule, protecting it under Article 31B from challenges based on Part III.

A similar thing happened in West Bengal. The Calcutta High Court struck down Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 as arbitrary, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the State's appeal. Even so, in 1990 the Sixty-sixth Amendment placed the entire Act in the Ninth Schedule.

The petitioners argued that laws already declared unconstitutional were becoming safe simply by being placed in the Ninth Schedule. In 1999, a five-judge bench held that the approach in Waman Rao needed reconsideration and referred the matter to a nine-judge bench.

1. After the basic structure doctrine arrived in 1973, could Parliament make any law completely immune from fundamental rights simply by placing it in the Ninth Schedule?

2. Could Parliament use Article 31B to bypass Part III altogether, and if so, would that violate the basic structure?

3. Put simply: if Parliament passed an unconstitutional law and then placed it in the Ninth Schedule, would it automatically become valid, or could the court still check it through judicial review?

Petitioners: After 1973, Parliament could not shield a law from Part III merely by placing it in the Ninth Schedule, because that would violate the basic structure doctrine. Equality under Article 14, the freedoms under Article 19 and the right to life under Article 21 are part of the basic structure and cannot be removed or ignored. If Parliament could keep making unconstitutional laws and placing them in the Ninth Schedule, Article 32 (the right to constitutional remedies) would become useless, and judicial review would simply be bypassed. If Parliament alone decided which laws were valid, the judiciary's role would end and checks and balances would break down. Any amendment against the basic structure, whether in the Ninth Schedule or elsewhere, must stay open to judicial review.

Government (State): Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule are a valid constitutional device, used either to remove the effect of judicial decisions or to validate laws retrospectively. In Kesavananda Bharati the Court held that the Constitution can be amended so long as the basic structure is not destroyed, so the Ninth Schedule remains valid as long as the basic structure is preserved. The existence of the judiciary is part of the basic structure, but Parliament can decide the limits of judicial review. The Ninth Schedule is only a limited restriction, not a complete ban on judicial review. Article 31B ensures that important welfare laws are not invalidated, its use does not mean Parliament will always abuse it, and Parliament should be trusted to act in the spirit of the Constitution.

The nine-judge Constitution Bench decided unanimously. It held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be completely shielded from judicial review if they violate the basic structure. Judicial review is part of the basic structure. Parliament may amend the Constitution, but it cannot give any law absolute immunity. Every law placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati decision) must pass the basic structure test.

Reasoning:
(1) Articles 14, 19 and 21, and the principles behind them, are essential parts of the basic structure. The Court recalled them as the 'golden triangle', which cannot be destroyed by taking shelter under the Ninth Schedule.
(2) If Parliament could use the Ninth Schedule this way, a controlled Constitution (where every organ's power has a fixed limit) would become an uncontrolled one, giving Parliament unlimited power.
(3) Parliament can amend fundamental rights, but only to the extent that the basic structure is not destroyed.

The Court laid down the rights test, also called the essence of rights test and the effect and impact test. A Ninth Schedule law is judged by its actual effect: whether it destroys the essence of fundamental rights and the basic features of the Constitution. If it does, it can be held invalid.

The Court also clarified two points. A law whose validity the Court had already upheld cannot be challenged again. A law that had earlier been struck down and was then placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be challenged on the ground of the basic structure.

The Ninth Schedule was not abolished. Laws placed in it before 24 April 1973 keep full protection. Later laws are treated as valid unless they are shown to destroy the basic structure.

Constitution of India, Article 31B; Ninth Schedule; Article 31A; Part III (Fundamental Rights); Article 14; Article 19; Article 21; Article 32; Constitution (First Amendment), 1951; Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment), 1974; Constitution (Sixty-sixth Amendment), 1990; Constitution (Seventy-sixth Amendment), 1994; Gudalur Janmam Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1969; West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, Section 2(c)

This is the decisive case on the clash between the basic structure doctrine and the Ninth Schedule. It restored judicial review over Ninth Schedule laws, strengthened the basic structure doctrine, and placed a check on Parliament's power, securing constitutional supremacy and the balance of powers.

For exams, students should write out the chain: Article 31B and the First Amendment (1951); the 24 April 1973 date of Kesavananda Bharati; the line taken in Waman Rao; and the rights test of I.R. Coelho.

Students should also stress that Coelho did not abolish the Ninth Schedule or invalidate all laws in it. It only limited the protection.

Keywords: nine judges, unanimous, Ninth Schedule not a safe haven, judicial review part of basic structure, golden triangle, essence of rights test.

Hypothetical: Suppose a State passes a law in 2010 that takes away the property of a group of citizens, including Prince, in a way that is completely arbitrary and treats them unequally. A High Court strikes the law down. Parliament then amends the Constitution to put the whole law into the Ninth Schedule.

Prince's lawyer, Zoya, challenges the law again. Following I.R. Coelho, the law gets no automatic immunity, because it entered the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973. The court applies the essence of rights (effect and impact) test.

If the law's actual effect destroys the essence of equality under Article 14 and so damages the basic structure, the court can declare it invalid.

By contrast, if Farhan challenged a law that was placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973, that law would keep full protection.