Supreme Court Rules Laws Added to Ninth Schedule Post-1973 Subject to Basic Structure Doctrine and Judicial Review

Landmark I.R. Coelho Judgment Affirms that Constitutional Amendments Immunizing Laws from Fundamental Rights Are Not Absolute and Must Pass Basic Structure Test

In a landmark judgment delivered on January 11, 2007, by a nine-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India, the Court clarified the scope of judicial review over laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution after April 24, 1973. The judgment arose from the case of I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, which examined whether Parliament could immunize laws from challenge on the ground of violating fundamental rights by placing them in the Ninth Schedule under Article 31B.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not unlimited and is subject to the implied limitation of the basic structure doctrine propounded in the seminal Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). It held that fundamental rights, particularly those enshrined in Articles 14 (Equality before law), 19 (Freedom of speech and movement), and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty), form an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, do not enjoy absolute immunity from judicial scrutiny if they infringe the essence of fundamental rights or damage the basic structure.

Historically, Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule were introduced by the First Amendment in 1951 to protect agrarian reform laws from protracted litigation on the grounds of violating fundamental rights. Initially, this protective umbrella was limited and served the socio-economic objectives of land reforms. However, over the decades, the number of laws included in the Ninth Schedule increased exponentially, rising from 13 to 284 enactments, many unrelated to land reforms. This expansion raised concerns about unchecked parliamentary power to override fundamental rights without judicial oversight.

The Court traced the constitutional evolution, noting the conflicting precedents on the amendability of fundamental rights. While earlier decisions like Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh upheld Parliament's plenary power to amend fundamental rights, the Golak Nath judgment (1967) curtailed this power by holding constitutional amendments as 'law' under Article 13 and thus subject to fundamental rights. Kesavananda Bharati overruled Golak Nath but introduced the basic structure doctrine, restricting Parliament from altering essential constitutional features.

The judgment emphasized that judicial review, guaranteed under Article 32, is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated by constitutional amendments. The Court rejected arguments that Article 31B grants Parliament unfettered power to exclude entire laws from Part III (Fundamental Rights) scrutiny by mere inclusion in the Ninth Schedule. It held that such immunization must be subject to judicial review on the "rights test" and the "essence of right test," considering the impact of the law on fundamental rights and the basic structure.

The Court clarified that while Parliament can amend the Constitution and include laws in the Ninth Schedule, the validity of such laws is open to challenge if they violate the basic structure by destroying or damaging fundamental rights. The judgment also highlighted that the balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy must be maintained, preserving individual liberties while promoting public good.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held:

1. Laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial review to ensure they do not violate the basic structure, particularly fundamental rights.

2. The immunity conferred by Article 31B is not absolute and cannot be used to shield laws that destroy the essence of fundamental rights or the constitutional framework.

3. The judiciary has the exclusive authority to determine whether a law violates fundamental rights and damages the basic structure.

4. Laws previously upheld and inserted before the cut-off date are not open to challenge on these grounds.

This judgment has profound implications for constitutional governance in India, reinforcing the supremacy of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary as the sentinel of fundamental rights. It curtails the unchecked power of Parliament to immunize laws from constitutional scrutiny and preserves the essential features that constitute the identity of the Indian Constitution.

Statutory provisions

Article 14, Article 19, Article 21, Article 31A, Article 31B, Article 32, Article 368, Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (SC)(Constitutional Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 130670