Chapter 10 · Topic 10.3 · Prelims + Mains3 of 3
Basic Structure Doctrine: I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu (2007): the Ninth
Key points
- Phrase not in the text; content decided case by case. 'Judicial review' also not in the text.
- Waman Rao (1981) and I.R. Coelho (2007): Ninth Schedule laws after 24 April 1973 reviewable.
- NJAC (99th) struck down, 2015; 103rd upheld, 2022.
Prelims box: facts and traps
| Ninth Schedule law added… | Can it be challenged? |
|---|---|
| Before 24 April 1973 | No, it stays protected (Waman Rao) |
| On or after 24 April 1973 | Yes, if it violates the basic structure (Coelho) |
| Already upheld by a court | The decision stands; the law is not reopened. |
- That is why the Court has called it part of the basic structure (Minerva Mills, 1980; L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).
- Held: A nine-judge bench held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be challenged if they damage the basic structure, including the essence of the rights in
- In favour: Kesavananda, Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain, Minerva Mills and the NJAC case (2015) struck down or limited amendments.
- Trap (UPSC Prelims 2019, the Constitution of India): “No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid” is incorrect. “An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India” is incorrect.
- Trap (UPSC Prelims 2019): “The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review” is incorrect.
On this page (3 sections)
I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu (2007): the Ninth
Schedule is not a safe harbour The Ninth Schedule, added by the 1st Amendment in 1951, shielded the laws placed in it (Art 31B) from challenge for violating Fundamental Rights. Over the years Parliament placed nearly three hundred laws there, many far from land reform.
I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu 2007
Held: A nine-judge bench held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be challenged if they damage the basic structure, including the essence of the rights in
Arts 14, 19 and 21. WHY IT MATTERS Parliament cannot use the Ninth Schedule to grant blanket immunity.
| Ninth Schedule law added… | Can it be challenged? |
|---|---|
| Before 24 April 1973 | No, it stays protected (Waman Rao) |
| On or after 24 April 1973 | Yes, if it violates the basic structure (Coelho) |
| Already upheld by a court | The decision stands; the law is not reopened |
Mains asked about this case directly: what was held in the Coelho case, and is judicial review of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? Answer: the Court held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be tested against the basic structure, including the rights in Arts 14, 19 and 21. Judicial review is the tool that enforces every other basic feature; without it the doctrine would be a statement with no remedy. That is why the Court has called it part of the basic structure (Minerva Mills, 1980; L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).
What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution?
→ Fundamental Rights: important cases Arts 14, 19 and 21, the ‘golden triangle’ Coelho protects.
What the basic structure contains (so far)
| Feature | Case (examples) |
|---|---|
| Free and fair elections; rule of law | Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975) |
| Limited amending power; judicial review; harmony of FR and DPSP | Minerva Mills (1980) |
| Secularism; federalism | S.R. Bommai (1994) |
| Judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court (Arts 226, 32) | L. Chandra Kumar (1997) |
| Independence of the judiciary | Supreme Court Advocates-on- Record Association (NJAC case, 2015) |
The doctrine has teeth. In 2015 the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary. So it is false that an
amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.
Consider the following statements : 1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review. 2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (b) · UPSC official key
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements : 1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid. 2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (d) · UPSC official key
The doctrine also upholds amendments. In Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India (2022), the Court by 3:2 upheld the 103rd Amendment (EWS reservation), finding no breach of the basic structure.
Mains view: guardian of democracy, or judges over
Parliament? UPSC links the doctrine to judicial activism: starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in India’s democracy. Evaluate both sides.
Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy.
Against the For the doctrine doctrine
| Stops a passing majority from destroying democracy (39th, 42nd Amendments) | Not in the text; the content is decided by unelected judges |
|---|---|
| Protects rights and federalism from the Emergency-type abuse of 1975–77 | Open-ended: no one knows in advance what is ‘basic’ |
| Has been adopted abroad, for example in Bangladesh (1989) Against the | Counter-majoritaria can block reforms the people wa |
| For the doctrine doctrine | |
| Used sparingly; many amendments upheld (e.g., 103rd) Narrow benches can bind th whole system |
A related question, asked in 2013: ‘The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution.’ Discuss critically. In favour: Kesavananda, Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain, Minerva Mills and the NJAC case (2015) struck down or limited amendments. Against: the list of basic features is open-ended and judge-made, and the Court has upheld most amendments, including the EWS quota (Janhit Abhiyan, 2022).
‘The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution.’ Discuss critically.
→ Judicial activism The broader debate on how far courts should go.
Mains box: analysis and answer points
- Against: the list of basic features is open-ended and judge-made, and the Court has upheld most amendments, including the EWS quota (Janhit Abhiyan, 2022).
- Schedule is not a safe harbour The Ninth Schedule, added by the 1st Amendment in 1951, shielded the laws placed in it (Art 31B) from challenge for violating Fundamental Rights.
- Likely next angle: Reservation or land laws in the Ninth Schedule and judicial review
- Asked: Mains 2016 (GS Paper II, 12.5 marks): What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution?
Practice
Write an answer
In 150 words, explain the significance of Basic Structure Doctrine with one recent example.
Flashcards (6)
What did I.R. Coelho (2007) hold?
Ninth Schedule laws added after 24 April 1973 can be tested against the basic structure.
Which case held secularism and federalism
basic? S.R. Bommai (1994).
Which case held judicial review by High
Courts basic? L. Chandra Kumar (1997).
Which amendment was struck down in
2015, and why? The 99th (NJAC), for violating the independence of the judiciary.
Was the 103rd Amendment (EWS) struck
down? No. Upheld 3:2 in Janhit Abhiyan (2022).
Name one country that adopted the
doctrine. Bangladesh (1989).
Read more: related explainers
In the news
Next chapter · 11. India and Other Constitutions →India and Other Constitutions: Sources of the ConstitutionSyllabus: GS-II · Indian Constitution—historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, s…