Did Coelho delete the Ninth Schedule?

No. It kept the Schedule but allowed courts to test post-1973 insertions on basic-structure grounds, especially if judicial review or equality is gutted.

Is judicial review more basic than federalism or elections?

Coelho does not rank a league table. It shows that without judicial review the other features cannot be defended when Parliament uses Article 31B. That is why it is of key importance.

What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial

Revision summary

Open summary Close summary

I.R. Coelho held that laws inserted in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be struck down if they damage basic structure. Article 31B is not an absolute immunity from Part III and from judicial review. Kesavananda, Indira Gandhi, Minerva Mills and L. Chandra Kumar already treated judicial review as a basic feature. Coelho makes that feature the lock on the Ninth Schedule. Judicial review is therefore of key importance: it is how every other basic feature is actually defended.

Model answer

Introduction

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) is the nine-judge ruling on whether a law put into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 is immune from fundamental-rights review. The Court held that such laws can still be tested on the basic structure, especially if they damage judicial review or other identified features. In that setting, judicial review is not one optional tool among many; it is the feature that keeps every other basic feature enforceable.

Body

What Coelho held

The Ninth Schedule, read with Article 31B, was added by the First Amendment, 1951, to protect certain agrarian laws from being void under Part III.
Waman Rao had already drawn a line at 24 April 1973, the date of Kesavananda Bharati: laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule before that date had greater protection; later insertions did not get a blank cheque.
Coelho held that a law placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 is open to challenge if it violates basic structure, and that the Court will look at the actual effect of the law, not only at the label of the schedule.
If the law destroys or damages judicial review, equality, or other basic features, Article 31B cannot save it.
The judgment does not abolish the Ninth Schedule; it stops the Schedule from becoming a laundry bag that hides constitutional amendments and ordinary statutes from the Kesavananda test.

Judicial review among the basic features

Kesavananda Bharati (1973) listed judicial review, or the power of courts to examine laws, among the features that Article 368 cannot destroy.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain struck down the attempt to place the Prime Minister’s election beyond court scrutiny, which is judicial review applied to the electoral basic feature.
Minerva Mills (1980) restored the balance of Parts III and IV and treated limited amending power and judicial review as essential; clipping the Court’s power was itself unconstitutional.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) held that judicial review by High Courts under Article 226 and by the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a basic feature, so even tribunal systems cannot oust that jurisdiction completely.
Coelho sits in this line: if Parliament could bury any statute in the Ninth Schedule, judicial review would be a paper feature, and basic structure would have no remedy.

Why it is of key importance

Federal distribution, fundamental rights, secularism, and free elections all need a forum that can void a contrary Act. Without judicial review those features are political appeals, not law.
Articles 13, 32, 136, 141, 142 and 226 are the working machinery; Coelho says Article 31B cannot switch that machinery off by a schedule entry.
Key importance does not mean judicial supremacy over every policy. It means that among basic features, review is the enforcement device. A feature that cannot be enforced is not basic in practice.
Later use of the Ninth Schedule has been cautious precisely because Coelho raised the cost of packing it.

Flow diagram

flowchart TD
  K[Kesavananda 24 Apr 1973] --> N[Ninth Schedule insertions]
  N --> CO[I.R. Coelho 2007]
  CO --> T[Basic structure test on effect]
  T --> J[Judicial review Arts 32 and 226]
  J --> B[Other basic features enforced]

Conclusion

Coelho held that post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws remain open to basic-structure review, including a direct attack on judicial review itself. In that context judicial review is of key importance among basic features, because it is the only feature that can police the others when Parliament uses Article 31B or Article 368. Without it, the basic-structure doctrine would be a sermon without a court.

Quick related

Students also ask

What are the major changes brought in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 through the recent ordinance promulgated by the President? How far will it improve India's dispute resolution mechanism? Discuss.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2015 · Q6). View answer →
Did Coelho delete the Ninth Schedule?

No. It kept the Schedule but allowed courts to test post-1973 insertions on basic-structure grounds, especially if judicial review or equality is gutted.
Is judicial review more basic than federalism or elections?

Coelho does not rank a league table. It shows that without judicial review the other features cannot be defended when Parliament uses Article 31B. That is why it is of key importance.

PYQ trend

When UPSC asked this

Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.

More from this topic

Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks

Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?

Indian Constitution

Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.

View answer → Download PDF

Q15 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks

Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.

Indian Constitution

Indian secularism: Preamble, Articles 25–28, Bommai as basic structure, personal laws, State reform of Hindu law and regulation of temples. US secularism: First Amendment establishment and free exercise, Everson’s wall, Engel on school prayer, no millet personal law. India practises principled distance and social reform; the United States practises non-establishment. Minority educational rights under Article 30 have no US analogue of that form. Neither wall nor distance is a finished peace with majoritarian politics. Comparison is of method, not of piety.

View answer → Download PDF

Q12 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks

Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity.

Indian Constitution

Puttaswamy held that privacy is part of Article 21 and that any restriction must be legal, necessary and proportionate. Section 112 of the Evidence Act treats a child born in a valid marriage as legitimate unless non-access is proved. Goutam Kundu and later cases refused to make DNA a routine paternity weapon in a private quarrel. A test on a child still in the womb adds miscarriage risk and collides with the woman’s bodily autonomy. Suchita Srivastava had already linked reproductive choice to personal liberty. Proportionality will rarely justify a prenatal paternity expedition. The law of paternity is not a right to inspect a womb.

View answer → Download PDF

Toppers' copies

Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.