I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu

Facts

Several Tamil Nadu and central enactments inserted into the Ninth Schedule after Kesavananda were challenged. The question referred to a nine-judge bench was whether laws so inserted enjoy total immunity from judicial review under Art 31B, or whether their validity can be tested against the basic structure.

Issues

• Whether laws inserted in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are immune from judicial review
• Whether such laws can be tested against the basic structure doctrine

Arguments

The petitioners argued blanket immunity under Art 31B cannot oust the basic structure test or destroy the essence of fundamental rights. The State argued Art 31B confers complete protection on Ninth Schedule laws against fundamental rights challenges.

Held

The Court unanimously held that every constitutional amendment, including insertion of a law into the Ninth Schedule on or after 24 April 1973, must satisfy the basic structure doctrine. Ninth Schedule laws do not enjoy absolute immunity; if a law abrogates fundamental rights forming part of the basic structure, or destroys the essence of such rights, it is open to challenge. The 'rights test' and the 'essence of rights' test apply, with Arts 14, 19 and 21 as touchstones.

Ratio decidendi

Post-24 April 1973 amendments inserting laws into the Ninth Schedule are subject to the basic structure doctrine and can be invalidated if they destroy the essence of fundamental rights.

Significance

Closed the Ninth Schedule loophole and reaffirmed that constitutional immunity cannot defeat the basic structure. It synthesised Kesavananda, Waman Rao and Minerva Mills and entrenched judicial review over Ninth Schedule laws.

Related