- CJI Y.K. SabharwalFavored (Authored)
- Justice B.N. AgrawalFavored
- Justice Ashok BhanFavored
- Justice Arijit PasayatFavored
- Justice C.K. ThakkerFavored
- Justice P.K. BalasubramanyanFavored
- Justice S.H. KapadiaFavored
- Justice D.K. JainFavored
- Justice Altamas KabirFavored
- Constitution of India (Articles 14, 19, 21, 31B, 32, 226, 368)
- Ninth Schedule (various entries, e.g., Tamil Nadu Reservation Act)
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
This case, also known as the Ninth Schedule Case, was referred to a 9-judge bench to resolve a critical constitutional question: Does Article 31B, which gives laws in the Ninth Schedule blanket immunity from judicial review, extend to laws that violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution? The Kesavananda Bharati case had established the Basic Structure doctrine, and the Waman Rao case had held that amendments to the 9th Schedule after the Kesavananda judgment (April 24, 1973) could be challenged.
This case aimed to definitively settle the scope of this challenge. Specifically, it examined whether laws placed in the 9th Schedule after 1973 could be tested against the Fundamental Rights (like Articles 14, 19, 21) which form a core part of the Basic Structure. The challenge arose from various laws, including a Tamil Nadu Act providing 69% reservation, which was placed in the 9th Schedule to protect it from being struck down for exceeding the 50% ceiling set in Indra Sawhney.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioners' Case (I.R. Coelho & Others)
- The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati established that Parliament's amending power is limited and cannot destroy the Basic Structure.
- Article 31B and the 9th Schedule, if used to grant absolute immunity, could be misused to destroy the Basic Structure by shielding unconstitutional laws.
- Placing a law in the 9th Schedule is itself a constitutional amendment (via Article 368) and thus must be subject to the Basic Structure test.
- Therefore, any law placed in the 9th Schedule after April 24, 1973, must be tested against the principles of the Basic Structure (which includes key Fundamental Rights).
Respondents' Case (State of TN / Union of India)
- The text of Article 31B is explicit: laws in the 9th Schedule are immune from challenge on the ground that they violate any Fundamental Rights (Part III).
- This immunity is absolute and was intended by the framers (and 1st Amendment) to protect socio-economic legislation.
- The Basic Structure doctrine only limits the power to amend the Constitution (Article 368), not the protection granted to ordinary laws placed in the 9th Schedule by an amendment.
- Applying the Basic Structure test to 9th Schedule laws would dilute the intended protection of Article 31B.
Case Progression Timeline
Kesavananda Bharati Judgment
13-judge bench establishes the Basic Structure Doctrine. All constitutional amendments are subject to this test.
April 24, 1973Waman Rao v. Union of India
SC holds that 9th Schedule amendments made after the Kesavananda judgment date (April 24, 1973) can be challenged for violating the Basic Structure.
1981Tamil Nadu Reservation Act
TN Assembly passes Act providing 69% reservation, exceeding the 50% cap set in Indra Sawhney.
199376th Amendment
Parliament places the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act into the 9th Schedule to immunize it from judicial review.
1994Writ Petitions Filed / Referral
I.R. Coelho and others file petitions challenging the 76th Amendment. A 5-judge bench refers the matter to a 9-judge bench to settle the law.
1999 (Referral)Supreme Court Judgment (I.R. Coelho)
The 9-judge bench unanimously holds that all laws placed in the 9th Schedule after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial review for violating the Basic Structure.
January 11, 2007The Supreme Court, in a unanimous 9-judge decision, delivered a powerful judgment that cemented the supremacy of the Basic Structure doctrine. The Court held that all laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are open to challenge in court.
The Court ruled that the protective blanket of Article 31B does not provide absolute immunity. If a law added to the 9th Schedule is shown to abrogate or destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution, it can be struck down by the courts. The Court clarified that Fundamental Rights (like Articles 14, 15, 19, 21) form the core of the Basic Structure, and any law that infringes upon their "essence" cannot be protected, even by the 9th Schedule.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
The Court's analysis, delivered by CJI Sabharwal, created a two-part test. First, a law placed in the 9th Schedule must be examined to see if it infringes upon any Fundamental Rights. If it does, the Court must then determine if this infringement violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution. If it does, the law will be struck down. The Court explained that the "golden triangle" of Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedoms), and 21 (Life and Liberty) is a key part of the Basic Structure. This judgment closed a potential loophole, ensuring that Parliament could not bypass the Basic Structure doctrine simply by using its amending power to place unconstitutional laws in the 9th Schedule. It established that judicial review, as part of the Basic Structure, applies to all laws, regardless of their purported immunity.
FINAL VERDICT
- All laws inserted into the 9th Schedule on or after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are subject to judicial review.
- Such laws can be challenged on the ground that they violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
- The "essence" of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 forms a key part of the Basic Structure.
- If a law in the 9th Schedule (post-1973) is found to damage or destroy the Basic Structure, it will be struck down as unconstitutional.
- The 9th Schedule's immunity under Article 31B is not absolute and does not protect against violations of the Basic Structure.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is limited by the Basic Structure doctrine. Placing a law in the 9th Schedule (which itself requires a constitutional amendment) does not exempt that law from the scrutiny of the Basic Structure test. All laws added to the 9th Schedule after April 24, 1973, must be tested against the principles of the Basic Structure. If a law infringes the "essence" of any Fundamental Right (which are part of the Basic Structure), it can be declared unconstitutional even if it is in the 9th Schedule.