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
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
-
Did the Government of India Act, 1935 lay down a federal constitution? Discuss.
Next question in the 2016 paper (Q7). 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.
-
2020 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks
"Recent amendments to the Right to information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission". Discuss. -
2019 · Q5 · GS II · 10 marks
What can France learn from the Indian Constitution's approach to secularism? -
2018 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks
Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine. -
2018 · Q3 · GS II · 10 marks
Under what circumstances can the Financial Emergency be proclaimed by the President of India? What consequences follow when such a declaration remains in force? -
2017 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the salient features of the constitution(One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. Do you think it is efficacious enough 'to remove cascading effect of taxes and provide for common national market for goods and services'? (250 words). -
2016 · Q2 · GS II · 12 marks
To what extent is Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, bearing marginal note "temporary provision with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir", temporary? Discuss the future prospects of this provision in the context of Indian polity. -
2015 · Q6 · GS II · 12 marks
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. -
2015 · Q7 · GS II · 12 marks
Does the right to clean environment entail legal regulation on burning crackers during Diwali? Discus in the light of Article 21 of Indian Constitution and judgements of the apex in this regard.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2016 · GS II · 12 marks
Discuss the essentials of the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act and anomalies, if any, that have led to recent reported conflicts between the elected representatives and the institution of the Lieutenant Governor in the administration of Delhi. Do you think that this will give rise to a new trend in the functioning of the Indian federal politics?
Federal Structure and Devolution
The 69th Amendment inserted Article 239AA and created Delhi’s Assembly and Council of Ministers, excluding police, public order and land. Ministers aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor, but a difference may be sent to the President, which became the legal hook for file delays. The GNCTD Act, 1991, and control over services widened the gap between the voters’ government and the Administrator. The clash is structural to a national-capital Union Territory, not a new model for the States. Court cases and the 2021 Amendment show competitive, litigated federalism in Delhi rather than a nationwide federal mutation.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2016 · GS II · 12 marks
To what extent is Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, bearing marginal note "temporary provision with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir", temporary? Discuss the future prospects of this provision in the context of Indian polity.
Indian Constitution
Article 370 is labelled temporary in Part XXI and can cease under clause (3), but the State Constituent Assembly never recommended that before it dissolved in 1957. Presidential orders, especially 1954, extended the Union Constitution while keeping the special gateway. Court practice treated the article as continuing, so it was temporary in name and durable in fact until 2019. C.O. 272, C.O. 273 and the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, made it inoperative; the 2023 judgment upheld that path and spoke of restoring statehood. Prospects in polity are now about statehood and ordinary federalism, not about reviving the old Article 370 as a living special status.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2016 · GS II · 12 marks
"The Indian party system is passing through a phase of transition which looks to be full of contradictions and paradoxes." Discuss.
Governance and Policy
The party system moved from Congress dominance to coalitions and then to a new national majority, without erasing State-level regional parties. Presidential campaign style collides with parliamentary collective responsibility. The Tenth and 91st Amendments curb defection and cabinet size but strengthen high commands. National and state party labels under the Symbols Order do not match the mixed federal reality. The transition is therefore full of legal and political paradoxes, not a clean model change.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.