I.R Coelho and State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: I.R Coelho vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors, (2007) 2 SCC 01
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: 09
(Y.K. Sabharwal, Ashok Bhan, Arijit Pasayat, B.P. Singh, S.H. Kapadia, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan, Altamas Kabir, D.K. Jain)
Facts:
The I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), also known as the Ninth Schedule case, is a landmark judgment that addressed the scope of judicial review over laws included in the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which were traditionally immune under Article 31-B. The Ninth Schedule, introduced by the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, was initially designed to protect land reform and zamindari abolition laws from judicial scrutiny for violating fundamental rights. However, successive governments misused this provision to shield laws that infringed on fundamental rights. In this case, I.R. Coelho challenged the inclusion of certain laws in the Ninth Schedule, arguing that they violated the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including the placement of laws in the Ninth Schedule. This case reasserted the supremacy of fundamental rights and the Constitution’s basic structure.
Issues:
Ninth Schedule: Can laws made after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) be subject to judicial review?
Article 31-B: Can immunity provided by this article extend to laws that violate the basic structure of the Constitution?
Judgement:
The case was decided upholding the basic structure doctrine and clarifying its application to the Ninth Schedule. The Court ruled that judicial review is an integral part of the Constitution's basic structure, which cannot be taken away. It held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial scrutiny if they violate fundamental rights forming part of the basic structure. It emphasized that all laws, irrespective of their inclusion in the Ninth Schedule, must conform to the Constitution's basic structure, or they would be struck down. Fundamental rights, particularly those under Articles 14, 19, and 21, were affirmed as essential elements of this doctrine and immune from legislative abrogation. This landmark ruling limited Parliament's power to shield arbitrary laws from scrutiny, reinforced constitutional supremacy, safeguarded fundamental rights, and maintained the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Conclusion:
The judgment significantly curtailed Parliament's unchecked authority to include laws in the Ninth Schedule to shield them from judicial review. It upheld the supremacy of the Constitution by ensuring that all laws, even those placed in the Ninth Schedule, are subject to scrutiny if they violate the basic structure, particularly fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. This decision reinforced the protection of individual rights and acted as a safeguard against arbitrary legislative actions, maintaining the delicate balance of power between the legislature, judiciary, and executive.
-NAINA RANA
HPNLU
Comments