Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, while empowering the Parliament to amend it, also recognizes certain inherent limitations to safeguard its basic structure. The tension between the amending power of the Parliament and the judiciary’s power of judicial review has been a recurring theme in Indian constitutional law. The landmark *I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu* (2007) case significantly clarified the scope of the Ninth Schedule and its relationship with the basic structure doctrine, building upon the foundation laid by the *Kesavananda Bharati* case (1973). This case reaffirmed the importance of judicial review in protecting the core principles of the Constitution.
The Coelho Case: Background and Holding
The Ninth Schedule, added to the Constitution in 1951, was intended to protect laws included in it from judicial review. This was done to expedite land reforms and social justice legislation. However, the Supreme Court in *Kesavananda Bharati* (1973) established the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, stating that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic features. This raised questions about the validity of laws placed in the Ninth Schedule.
The *I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu* (2007) case arose from challenges to amendments made to Tamil Nadu’s land reform laws, which were included in the Ninth Schedule. The central question was whether laws placed in the Ninth Schedule were immune from judicial review, even if they violated fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court held that laws included in the Ninth Schedule are *not* immune from judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court clarified that the Ninth Schedule was not intended to be a shield for laws that fundamentally altered the Constitution’s core principles. It overruled its earlier decision in *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* (1978), which had suggested a broader immunity for Ninth Schedule laws. The Court stated that any law, including those in the Ninth Schedule, must conform to the basic structure.
Judicial Review as a Basic Feature
The *Coelho* case strongly reinforces the argument that judicial review is indeed a basic feature of the Constitution. Several factors support this assertion:
- Constitutional Provisions: Articles 32 and 226 grant the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, the power to enforce fundamental rights through writs. This inherently involves judicial review.
- Kesavananda Bharati: The very doctrine of the basic structure, established in *Kesavananda Bharati*, necessitates judicial review to determine whether amendments violate these basic features.
- Balance of Power: Judicial review ensures a balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, preventing any one branch from becoming overly dominant.
- Protection of Rights: It safeguards fundamental rights and prevents arbitrary state action, upholding the rule of law.
- Coelho’s Affirmation: The *Coelho* case explicitly affirmed that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule, intended to bypass judicial scrutiny, are subject to review if they violate the basic structure. This demonstrates the paramount importance of judicial review.
The Court in *Coelho* also categorized fundamental rights into three categories: those that are amenable to the Ninth Schedule (like Directive Principles), those that are absolutely non-amenable (like the secular character of the Constitution), and those that are amenable but require a higher degree of scrutiny. This categorization further highlights the judiciary’s role in defining the boundaries of constitutional amendments.
Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is considered a basic feature, and judicial review is integral to maintaining this separation.
Conclusion
The *I.R. Coelho* case was a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It reaffirmed the supremacy of the basic structure doctrine and unequivocally established that judicial review is not merely a procedural mechanism but a fundamental aspect of the Constitution itself. By subjecting even laws in the Ninth Schedule to judicial scrutiny, the Court underscored the judiciary’s duty to protect the Constitution’s core principles and safeguard the rights of citizens. The case serves as a powerful reminder that the amending power of Parliament is not absolute and must be exercised within the confines of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.