CASE COMMENTARY
IR COHELO VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Introduction:
In this matter, the judges were confronted with a very important task of
determining the nature and character of protection provided by Article 31-B of
the Constitution of India, 1950 (for short, the 'Constitution') to the laws added
to the Ninth Schedule by amendments made after 24th April 1973. The
relevance of this date is because on this date judgment of The Keshavananda
Bharati case was pronounced put forward the doctrine of the Basic Structure
of the Constitution to test the validity of constitutional amendments. The IR
Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu is a significant case in Indian constitutional law
that dealt with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the scope of
amending powers of the Indian Parliament under Article 368 of the
Constitution of India. The case challenged the validity of the 9th Schedule of
the Constitution, which protects laws from judicial review. The judgment given
by the Supreme Court of India in this case had far-reaching suggestions for the
balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. Also, fundamental
rights have proved to be the most significant constitutional control of the
government, especially on the legislative power.
Summary of the facts:
A five-judge Constitution bench in 1999 referred to a previous case from 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. +uHowever, 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 the date of the Keshavananda
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 in this case:
The key question before the Supreme Court in the IR Coelho Case was that,
since the introduction of the basic structure doctrine in 1973,
Parliament can shield laws from fundamental rights by adding them to the
Ninth Schedule. And if it can, how does this affect the Judiciary's power of
judicial review? 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 violate the fundamental structure of the Constitution.
The Ninth Schedule: The Ninth Schedule in the Indian Constitution contains a
list of laws, both central and state, that are protected from judicial
challenges. The Ninth Schedule was included in the Constitution by the first
amendment enacted in 1951. This schedule includes a list of federal and state
laws that are exempt from judicial review. 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.
Parliament amended the Constitution by adding Articles 31-A and 31-B to
support the enactment of laws aimed at agrarian reforms and to protect these
laws from being challenged based on violating fundamental rights. Article 31-
B was introduced through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, along
with the addition of the Ninth Schedule, which initially contained thirteen
items related to land reform laws. These amendments were made to prevent
these laws from being invalidated under Article 13 of the Constitution
Article 31A: It saves five categories of laws from being challenged and
invalidated on the grounds of contravention of the fundamental rights
conferred by Article 14 and Article 19. It also provides the guaranteed right to
compensation in case of acquisition or requisition of private property by the
state.
Article 31B: It protects the acts and regulations included in the ninth schedule
from being challenged and invalidated on the ground of contravention of
any of the fundamental rights. The scope of Article 31B is wider than Article
31A as it immunizes any law included in the ninth schedule from
the fundamental rights.
The Keshavnanda Bharti case: The 29th Amendment done in 1972 modified the
Ninth Schedule by adding two Kerala Amendment Acts related to land reforms:
Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969, and Kerala Land Reforms
Amendment Act,1971.
These amendments were contested in the Keshavananda Bharati case, which
was decided on April 24, 1973, by a 13-judge bench. In a narrow majority
decision of seven to six, the court overturned the ruling of Golak Nath's case. It
held that Article 368 did not grant Parliament the authority to remove the
basic structure or framework of the Constitution. However, it upheld the
validity of the land reforms made by the Kerala government.
S.R. Bommai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors: The case cited that judicial review
is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution and that the power of judicial
review is an inherent part of the Constitution that cannot be
eliminated through judicial interpretation. It emphasized that no entity can
assert sole authority over the powers granted by the Constitution and that all
actions must adhere to the limits set by the Constitution. This underscores the
principle that the Constitution is supreme and no entity, including the judiciary,
can act beyond its constitutional authority, and the court must uphold the
constitutional values and enforce constitutional limitations as the ultimate
interpreter of the Constitution.
According to Dr. Amartya Sen, the justification behind safeguarding
fundamental rights lies not in the belief that they are
inherently superior, but rather in the understanding that protecting these
rights is the most effective means of fostering a fair and tolerant society.
Lord Steyn believes that the judiciary is uniquely positioned to uphold
fundamental rights due to its independent status. Moreover, he contends that
the judiciary's role in interpreting laws involves not only textual analysis but
also consideration of societal values. This enables the judiciary to apply
principles of justice and law in a manner that ensures the protection of
fundamental rights.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 78, published May 28, 1788, emphasizes that
in a constitution with specific rules limiting what the government can do, like
not passing certain kinds of laws, it's crucial to have independent courts. These
courts must declare any laws that violate these rules as invalid. Without this
check, the protections promised by the Constitution wouldn't mean much.
Montesquieu talks about the separation of powers among the different organs
of the government and warns that if one person or group controls all the
powers—making laws, enforcing them, and judging cases—it leads to tyranny.
It's essential to separate these powers to prevent abuse of authority.
Judgement:
The constitutional bench observed in this case that:
1. If a law or an amendment to Part III of the Indian constitution or an
insertion in the Ninth Schedule, violates the basic structure doctrine, it must be
invalidated through judicial review.
2. Each constitutional amendment, including those affecting the Ninth
Schedule, must be judged on its own merits, considering its impact on the
rights guaranteed under Part III.
3. Amendments to the Ninth Schedule made after April 24, 1973, must be
tested against the basic structure doctrine, particularly about fundamental
rights under Articles 21, 14, and 19.
4.The justification for granting protection to laws included in the Ninth
Schedule will be subject to constitutional adjudication, examining the nature
and extent of the violation of fundamental rights and applying tests such as the
"rights test" and the "essence of the right" test.
5.If there’s a breach of fundamental rights affecting the basic structure, the law
will not receive protection under the Ninth Schedule.
6. Laws upheld by the court previously cannot be challenged again, but if a law
found violative of Part III rights is subsequently included in the Ninth
Schedule, it can be challenged on the grounds of basic structure doctrine.
7. Actions and transactions resulting from the challenged Acts will not be open
to challenge.
Analysis:
The role of the judiciary is to protect fundamental rights. A modern
democracy is based on the twin principles of separation of power and checks &
balances. The role of the judiciary is to protect fundamental rights and ensure
that the laws made are according to the Constitution. According to Lord Styen,
it is the job of the Judiciary to balance the principles ensuring that the
Government does not override fundamental rights. In the case of Keshavnanda
Bharti, the court addressed the concept of "basic structure," which put certain
limitations on the amending power of the Parliament. The court held that
while Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution under Article
368, it could not amend its basic structure. This landmark decision established
the principle that there are certain core principles and features of the
Constitution that cannot be amended, ensuring the preservation of the
fundamental framework of the Constitution. Even with the inclusion of the
term "constituent power" in Article 368, Parliament does not transform into a
Constituent Assembly. The doctrine of basic structure continues to constrain
Parliament's amending powers, even after the addition of "constituent power"
to Article 368. This was illustrated in cases like Indira Gandhi's case, Minerva
Mills's case, and Waman Rao's case. These cases demonstrated that any
attempt by Parliament to expand its powers that undermines the core
principles of the Constitution, as established in Keshavananda Bharati's case,
would not be permissible.
The doctrine of basic structure holds the fundamental principles of the
constitution that cannot be amended. It comes into use when there is an
invasion of fundamental elements of the Constitution. However, there are
instances where interference with certain freedoms may be justifiable under
some specific circumstances. Before the Keshavananda Bharati case, the
parliament had unlimited authority. But now, with the basic structure doctrine,
the power of the parliament has been constrained and certain core principles
of the Constitution cannot be violated.
The idea that laws in the Ninth Schedule are immune from judicial review
because of parliamentary immunity given under Article 368 is inoperative with
the basic structure doctrine. So, each law in the Ninth Schedule must be looked
at individually to see if it harms the basic structure of the Constitution or not.
When we assess if a constitutional change is okay, we look at how it affects
things. If it steps on basic rights, the government needs a good reason. The
court checks if laws follow these rights. The more a law affects our freedoms,
the more the court checks it. If we let laws slide without full court review, it
hurts the basic rules of our Constitution. So, when we judge laws in the Ninth
Schedule, we focus on how they directly affect our rights, not just how they're
written. The Validity of the Ninth Schedule was upheld in this case and it is
continued till this date.
Importance:
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. 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.
