Law Maker

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court of India · 11 January 2007 · 9 judges

Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule by amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 get no blanket immunity and can be tested against the basic structure, as reflected in Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19.

Facts

The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 had been struck down in part by the Supreme Court in Balmadies Plantations, and Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 had been struck down by the Calcutta High Court. Both Acts were then inserted in the Ninth Schedule by the Thirty-fourth and Sixty-sixth Amendments. Before a five Judge Bench it was argued that statutes, including parts already struck down, could not validly be placed in the Ninth Schedule. In 1999 that Bench, finding apparent inconsistencies in Waman Rao, referred the question to a larger Bench, preferably of nine Judges.

Questions before the Court

  1. Whether, on and after 24 April 1973, Parliament can under Article 31B immunise laws from fundamental rights by inserting them in the Ninth Schedule, and what effect this has on judicial review.
  2. Whether a law found violative of Part III can be protected by later insertion in the Ninth Schedule.

What the Court held

  • A law that abrogates or abridges Part III rights may or may not violate the basic structure; if it does, it must be invalidated, whether made by amending a Part III Article or by insertion in the Ninth Schedule.
  • Following Kesavananda Bharati read with Indira Gandhi, every new amendment is judged on its own merits by its actual effect and impact on Part III rights (the impact or rights test), not by its form.
  • Ninth Schedule insertions on or after 24 April 1973 must be tested against the basic structure as reflected in Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19, Article 15 and their underlying principles. Parliament cannot grant fictional, blanket immunity that excludes judicial review.
  • Laws already upheld by the Court cannot be reopened on these principles, but a law held violative of Part III and later inserted is open to challenge. Completed actions and transactions are protected; the cases were sent to a three Judge Bench.

Why it matters

A nine Judge Bench held that Article 31B cannot be used after 24 April 1973 to place laws wholly beyond judicial review. It treats Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19 as part of the basic structure, adopts the direct impact and effect (rights) test for Ninth Schedule laws, and affirms Waman Rao's view that later insertions do not receive full protection.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“The power to grant absolute immunity at will is not compatible with basic structure doctrine and, therefore, after 24th April, 1973 the laws included in the Ninth Schedule would not have absolute immunity. Thus, validity of such laws can be challenged on the touchstone of basic structure such as reflected in Article 21 read with Article 14 and Article 19, Article 15 and the principles underlying these Articles.”
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJIPage 38 of the judgment
“The result of aforesaid discussion is that the constitutional validity of the Ninth Schedule Laws on the touchstone of basic structure doctrine can be adjudged by applying the direct impact and effect test, i.e., rights test, which means the form of an amendment is not the relevant factor, but the consequence thereof would be determinative factor.”
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJIPage 40 of the judgment
“All amendments to the Constitution made on or after 24th April, 1973 by which the Ninth Schedule is amended by inclusion of various laws therein shall have to be tested on the touchstone of the basic or essential features of the Constitution as reflected in Article 21 read with Article 14, Article 19, and the principles underlying them.”
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJIPage 40 of the judgment
“It is permissible for the Legislature to amend the Ninth Schedule and grant a law the protection in terms of Article 31B but subject to right of citizen to assail it on the enlarged judicial review concept. The Legislature cannot grant fictional immunities and exclude the examination of the Ninth Schedule law by the Court after the enunciation of the basic structure doctrine.”
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJIPage 38 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

  • Follows Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)“The majority judgment in Kesavananda Bharati's case read with Indira Gandhi's case, requires the validity of each new constitutional amendment to be judged on its own merits.” (page 40)
  • Follows Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)“The majority judgment in Kesavananda Bharati's case read with Indira Gandhi's case, requires the validity of each new constitutional amendment to be judged on its own merits.” (page 40)
  • Follows Waman Rao v. Union of India (1980)“In Waman Rao, it was accordingly rightly held that the Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule after 24th April, 1973 would not receive the full protection.” (page 37)

Case and bench

Parties
I.R. Coelho (Dead) By LRs v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case
Civil Appeal Nos. 1344-45 of 1976 (with connected writ petitions, civil appeals and special leave petitions)
Decided
11 January 2007
Bench
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI, Ashok Bhan, Arijit Pasayat, Bisheshwar P. Singh, S.H. Kapadia, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan, Altamas Kabir, D.K. Jain
Opinions
Unanimous. Single judgment of the nine Judge Bench delivered by Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI.

Questions on this case

8 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

  1. Question 1 · Constitutional Law Practice Set 3 — Rights, Cases & Structure

    In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after which date are open to challenge on the ground that they damage the basic structure?

    1. A. 26 January 1950
    2. B. 25 June 1975
    3. C. 24 April 1973
    4. D. 1 January 1993
    Show the answer

    C. 24 April 1973

    In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), a nine-Judge Bench held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, can be tested against the basic structure, including the essence of Fundamental Rights.

  2. Question 2 · Administrative Law Practice Set 1

    The classical statement that there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body, or where the judicial power is not separated from them, is found in the writings of:

    1. A. Jeremy Bentham
    2. B. Montesquieu
    3. C. John Austin
    4. D. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
    Show the answer

    B. Montesquieu

    Montesquieu set out the doctrine of separation of powers in The Spirit of the Laws, warning that liberty is lost when these powers are combined. The passage is quoted in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).

  3. Question 3 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

    In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the nine-Judge Bench held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after a particular date can be tested on the ground that they damage or destroy the basic structure. That date is the date on which:

    1. A. the Constitution came into force, that is, 26 January 1950
    2. B. Kesavananda Bharati was decided, that is, 24 April 1973
    3. C. Golak Nath was decided, that is, 27 February 1967
    4. D. the Forty-second Amendment took effect, that is, 3 January 1977
    Show the answer

    B. Kesavananda Bharati was decided, that is, 24 April 1973

    Coelho held that Article 31B cannot immunise laws added to the Ninth Schedule by amendments made on or after 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment that propounded the basic structure doctrine. Such laws can be challenged if they damage the basic structure as reflected in Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19.