Revision 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
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
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.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this topic
Q17 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS II · 15 marks · Solution
Can the constitutional mandate of rights-based welfare be effectively realised in the context of non-integrated governance and minimal public investment? Examine.
Indian Constitution
• India’s constitutional welfare mandate struggles due to fragmented administrative silos and low public spending. • Siloed departmental functioning causes duplication, exclusion errors, and severe frontline administrative overload. • Suboptimal public investment in health and education forces heavy reliance on profit-driven private providers. • Fiscal federalism pressures leave financially weaker states unable to co-finance central welfare mandates properly. • Overcoming these bottlenecks requires a whole-of-government approach using unified digital platforms for convergence. • Progressively increasing public expenditure on core social infrastructure is vital to meet statutory entitlements. • Strengthening social audits and grievance redressal ensures legal rights translate into tangible grassroots outcomes.
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS II · 10 marks · Solution
Right to privacy relating to self-identity is very dear to every human being and well protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, examine the effect of the amendment in 2026 to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
Indian Constitution
• Article 21 protects personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and the right to self-identity as core components of human dignity. • The Supreme Court's *K.S. Puttaswamy* judgment firmly established privacy as a fundamental right encompassing personal choices. • The 2026 amendment to the Transgender Persons Act, 2019, aims to align statutory laws with evolving constitutional jurisprudence. • Key reforms include decentralising identity certification to eliminate bureaucratic delays and arbitrary state interference. • The amendment also strengthens punitive and remedial mechanisms against social and institutional discrimination. • Persistent challenges remain, notably bridging the gap between legal recognition and deep-rooted societal stigma. • True realization of these rights requires continuous administrative sensitization and inclusive access to education, healthcare, and jobs.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks · Solution
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.