RAS question
The I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) case is significant because the Supreme Court held that:
Correct answer: (D) Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 can be challenged on the ground that they violate the basic structure.
In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be challenged if they destroy or damage the Constitution's basic structure.
Explanation
I.R. Coelho is significant because it rejected blanket immunity for Ninth Schedule laws added after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment date, 24 April 1973. The nine-judge Bench unanimously affirmed that judicial review is part of the Constitution's basic structure. Therefore, a law placed in the Ninth Schedule by a constitutional amendment after that date is not automatically protected if its effect is to destroy or damage basic features. The test looks especially at the core of Part III rights reflected in Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19. In short, Article 31-B and the Ninth Schedule can protect laws, but not in a way that removes basic-structure scrutiny.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) The ruling was not about limiting Ninth Schedule insertions to the First Amendment; it dealt with judicial review of post-24 April 1973 additions to the Ninth Schedule.
- (B) The case held the opposite of blanket immunity: post-Kesavananda Ninth Schedule laws remain open to challenge if they damage the basic structure.
- (C) The Court did not abolish the Ninth Schedule; it kept protection possible but made it subject to basic-structure review.
Concept
This tests the basic structure doctrine, judicial review and the constitutional status of the Ninth Schedule. It recurs in RAS because land reform immunity, Article 31-B and limits on Parliament's amending power are standard Constitution themes.