Home Landmark Judgments Democracy, Elections & Federalism

2007

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu

(2007) 2 SCC 1 · 9-judge bench

The Facts

Challenged whether laws placed in the Ninth Schedule (originally meant to shield land-reform laws from judicial review) could really remain completely immune from constitutional scrutiny forever, no matter what they actually did.

The Holding

The Court held that any law inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati ruling) remains subject to review against the Constitution's basic structure — the Ninth Schedule's shield is no longer absolute for post-1973 additions.

Reined in what had become a growing practice of using the Ninth Schedule to shield increasingly unrelated and controversial laws from any judicial scrutiny at all — see our Ninth Schedule page for the full detail.

Cross-References

Related law

Art. 31B

The Ninth Schedule provision this case limited

PUCL v. Union of India (NOTA Case)M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case)

Related Judgments

Keep exploring

1973

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

This is arguably the single most important case in Indian constitutional history — the "Basic Structure Doctrine" it created is what stops Parliament from, say, amending away elections or the judiciary itself, even with the numbers to pass a constitutional amendment.

(1973) 4 SCC 225

This is a plain-English summary, not verbatim judgment text. Adhikar is an independent citizen-awareness platform, not a Government of India website. Always verify against the full judgment (indiankanoon.org, sci.gov.in) or a qualified advocate before relying on this for an actual legal situation.