IR Coelho Case

Case Name: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu [IR Coelho Case]

Civil Appeal No. 4549

Date of Judgment: March 11, 2007

Facts of IR Coelho Case

A five-judge Constitution bench in 1999 referred to a previous case. In the past, the Supreme Court had declared the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 as unconstitutional in the Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) case. However, this Act was added to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution by the Thirty-fourth Amendment Act (1974).

Similarly, the Calcutta High Court found Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 to be arbitrary and unconstitutional. Nevertheless, this Act was also included in the Ninth Schedule by the Sixty-sixth Amendment Act (1990). These amendments were the focus of the case before the five-judge bench.

The Constitutional bench referred to a previous Supreme Court judgment in the case of Waman Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1981). It held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule through amendments made after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Keshvananda Bharati case judgment), could be challenged if they violated the fundamental principles of the Constitution, such as those found in Article 14, Article 19, Article 21, and related principles. Therefore, the case was referred to a larger bench of nine judges to re-examine the Waman Rao case’s decision and determine the final position of the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

The key question before the Supreme Court in IR Coelho Case was whether, following the Keshvananda Bharati judgment, laws placed in the Ninth Schedule could be shielded from judicial review, even if they were deemed to violate the fundamental structure of the Constitution.

The original intention behind introducing the Ninth Schedule in the Constitution was to facilitate legislative reforms in the agrarian sector. However, over time, the legislature began to use it as a means to bypass the process of judicial review. The extent to which the Ninth Schedule provides immunity to laws is a central concern. It essentially allows laws placed within it to be safeguarded from judicial review, but this case raised the question of whether such immunity could extend even when those laws were found to be in violation of the fundamental structure of the Constitution.

9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution

The Ninth Schedule in the Indian Constitution contains a list of laws, both central and state, that are protected from judicial challenges. The government introduced Article 31A and Article 31B to safeguard laws related to agricultural reforms and the abolition of the Zamindari system.

The First Amendment was enacted in 1951, and it included the Ninth Schedule in the Constitution. This schedule includes a list of federal and state laws that are exempt from judicial review. Article 31-B of the Indian Constitution provides detailed information about the Ninth Schedule.

Initially, it contained 13 laws primarily focused on land reforms. However, it has since grown to include 284 laws covering various areas like mines, trade, and reservations.

The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution significantly limits the power of the judiciary. By placing a law in the Ninth Schedule, which is not subject to judicial review, it can be protected from being declared invalid by the courts, even if it violates basic rights. The retroactive nature of the Ninth Schedule is a crucial aspect. If a law is added to the Ninth Schedule after being ruled unconstitutional, it is considered legal and becomes a part of the schedule.

Judgment of IR Coelho Case

The bench that heard IR Coelho Case comprised Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice Ashok Bhan, Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice B.P. Singh, Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice C.K. Thakker, Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, Justice Altamas Kabir, and Justice D.K. Jain.

In IR Coelho Case, the Court emphasised the duty of the judiciary to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. It pointed out that Article 368 does not grant the legislature the same power as the original Constituent Assembly. Article 368 comes with restrictions, particularly the safeguard of the basic structure. The Court firmly stated that no law that violates the basic structure of the Indian Constitution can be shielded by any amendment, including those placed in the Ninth Schedule.

The Court’s judgment in IR Coelho Case highlighted the significance of the basic structure, which is the core essence of the Indian Constitution. It held that any law or amendment inconsistent with Part 3 of the Indian Constitution, even if placed in the Ninth Schedule, would be struck down through the process of judicial review.

The Court in IR Coelho Case introduced the “effect and impact” test, which means that the consequences of an amendment on the Constitution, rather than the part of the Constitution being amended, should be the determining factor in assessing its validity. It emphasised that all amendments made to the Constitution after April 24, 1973, must be in line with the essential features of the Constitution as reflected in Article 21, Article 14, and Article 19.

The Court also clarified in IR Coelho Case that judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure and that no law can be shielded from it. While the validity of the Ninth Schedule itself had been upheld by the Court, it made it clear that any law added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, which violates Article 21, Article 19, Article 14, and their underlying principles, can be legally challenged.

Importance of the IR Coelho Case

The IR Coelho Case has indeed reinforced the significance and authority of the basic structure doctrine in the Indian Constitution. It underscores that if amendments are found to be violative of the basic structure, they should be invalidated. An example of this was the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) through the 99th constitutional amendment, which was deemed unconstitutional.

The case underscores that judicial review is the most rational and effective approach to handle laws that infringe upon and pertain to fundamental rights. It empowers the judiciary to assess the constitutionality of laws and amendments, ensuring that they do not undermine the essential framework and principles of the Indian Constitution.

Judicial Reveiew in the Coelho Case

In India, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are endowed with distinct powers as outlined in the constitution. The judiciary serves as the ultimate authority for interpreting and safeguarding the constitution. The judiciary’s capacity to assess whether legislation enacted by the legislative or executive branches adheres to constitutional principles is termed judicial review. This practice ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and protects the rights of the people by preventing arbitrary actions by the executive and the legislature.

In the renowned IR Coelho Case, a bench of nine judges, led by Justice Sabharwal, played a pivotal role in upholding the authority of the judiciary.

IR Coelho Case Summary

The IR Coelho Case, a landmark in Indian jurisprudence, confirmed the supremacy of the basic structure doctrine in the Constitution. A nine-judge bench, led by Justice Sabharwal, ruled that any constitutional amendment found violating fundamental rights and the basic structure could be struck down, extending the reach of judicial review. This strengthened the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution.

IR Coelho Case’s impact was evident when it declared the 99th constitutional amendment, which sought to establish the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), unconstitutional. IR Coelho reaffirmed the judiciary’s power to protect constitutional integrity and fundamental rights, upholding the principles of the Indian Constitution.