What did I.R. Coelho decide about the Ninth Schedule?

After 24 April 1973, laws put in the Ninth Schedule are not fully immune. Courts can review them on the basic structure test using Articles 14, 19 and 21.

What tests did the Court use?

The rights test and the essence of the right test. The focus is on the law’s direct impact and effect on core rights.

Which earlier cases mattered?

Kesavananda Bharati (1973) set the basic structure rule; Waman Rao (1981) guided review of post-1973 insertions.

What happens if a Ninth Schedule law harms basic structure?

It does not get Ninth Schedule protection and can be struck down.

Does the form of a law matter?

No. The Court looks at effect and impact, not labels or form.

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu

AIR 2007 SC 861 • Constitutional Law • Ninth Schedule • Basic Structure • Articles 14/19/21

Supreme Court of India Bench: Constitution Bench Citation: AIR 2007 SC 861 ~7 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Published: 24 Oct 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Ninth Schedule; basic structure; Articles 14/19/21; rights test SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Kesavananda; Waman Rao; essence of the right; judicial review

Quick Summary

The case asked: after 24 April 1973 (Kesavananda date), can Parliament place any law in the Ninth Schedule and make it immune from court review? The Supreme Court said no blanket immunity. Post-1973 insertions can be tested against the basic structure using the rights test and the essence of the right test drawn from Articles 14, 19, and 21. If a protected law damages core rights, it fails.

Ninth Schedule ≠ automatic shield after 24-04-1973.
Effect, not form, decides validity (direct impact test).
Basic structure prevails over immunity claims.

Issues

After 24.04.1973, can Parliament use Article 31-B to place laws in the Ninth Schedule and keep them beyond judicial review?
If yes, what limits apply—especially regarding the Court’s power of judicial review and the basic structure?

Rules

Basic Structure Doctrine: No amendment or shield can damage the Constitution’s basic structure.
Rights & Essence Tests: Check the effect on Articles 14, 19, 21 and ask if the essence of the right is hit.
Direct Impact Rule: Courts look at impact, not labels or placement in the Ninth Schedule.

Facts (Timeline)

View Timeline

1969: Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act passed; forest lands vested in State.

SC in Balmadies Plantations: Janmam Act not protected by Article 31-A.

Later: 34th Amendment places Janmam Act in the Ninth Schedule.

1999: Five-judge bench refers questions to a larger bench about review of post-1973 Ninth Schedule insertions (noting Waman Rao).

Reference asks: Can laws already held violative of Articles 14/19/31 be put in Ninth Schedule? Or can only the amendment be struck if it harms basic structure?

Timeline visual for the I.R. Coelho Ninth Schedule reference — Key steps from Janmam Act to the Constitution Bench ruling.

Arguments

For Review (Petitioners)

Post-1973 insertions that damage core rights must face basic structure review.
Article 31-B cannot be used as a blanket escape from scrutiny.
Courts must look at effect on Articles 14/19/21.

Against Review (Respondents)

Ninth Schedule gives immunity; Parliament’s judgment should prevail.
Agrarian reform goals justify strong protection.
Courts should not reopen settled transfers to the Ninth Schedule.

Judgment

After 24-04-1973, laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are open to basic structure review.
Court applies the rights test and essence of the right test using Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Effect over form: If the law’s impact damages core rights/basic structure, Ninth Schedule protection fails.

Ratio (Core Principle)

Post-Kesavananda insertions into the Ninth Schedule are not beyond review. If their direct impact injures the essence of rights under Articles 14/19/21, they violate the basic structure and cannot be saved by Article 31-B.

Why It Matters

Protects judicial review as a core feature.
Stops misuse of Ninth Schedule as a “safe house.”
Centers rights impact—effect, not label, controls.

Key Takeaways

No Blanket Immunity: Ninth Schedule after 1973 is reviewable.
Rights Focus: Articles 14/19/21 are the touchstones.
Essence Matters: Hitting a right’s core is fatal.

Effect Test: Outcomes over wording.
Judicial Review: Remains part of basic structure.
Practice Tip: Map Impact → Rights/Essence → Basic Structure.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: COELHO = Check Only Effect, Look at Heart of rights

Check Effect: What is the law’s direct impact?
Look at Heart: Does it hit the essence of 14/19/21?
Outcome: If yes, Ninth Schedule shield fails.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws escape judicial review, and with what effect on basic structure?

Rule

Basic structure doctrine; rights & essence tests; direct impact test under Articles 14/19/21.

Application

Assess the statute’s real-world effect; if it damages core rights, Ninth Schedule cover cannot save it.

Conclusion

Post-1973 insertions are reviewable; any that injure basic structure are invalid despite Article 31-B.

Glossary

Ninth Schedule: A list of laws claimed to be protected from rights challenges via Article 31-B.
Basic Structure: Core features of the Constitution that no amendment can damage.
Rights Test: Examines a law’s direct impact on Articles 14/19/21.
Essence of Right: Asks whether a law hits the heart of a fundamental right.

FAQs

No. After 24-04-1973, courts review them for basic structure violations using Articles 14/19/21 tests.

It is the date of Kesavananda Bharati, which set the basic structure rule guiding later review.

The focus is on extent and essence. If the core of the right is not hit, the law may stand.

No. Courts judge the effect and impact, not the title or placement alone.

Quick Nav

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related