I. R. COELHO case, Constitution of India

I. R. COELHO
vs.
State of Tamil Nadu

(AIR 2007 SCC 861)

BY VRAJ SHAH

This case is related to 9th schedule of Constitution of India.
The Nine Judges' bench, headed by the then Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal, delivered a unanimous verdict on January 11, 2007. India was suffering from Zameendaari-Pratha. Zameendaari-System.
Our farmer's condition was not secured.
To remove that Zameendaari System Hovernmentbhas started to acquisition of land of landlords. Government has added 9th schedule in the Constitution by 1st amendment in year 1951.
9th schedule is known as

"Validation of certain Acts and Regulations"
It comprises 284 acts and regulations.
Government added land reforms acts in this schedule.

With similar amendment Government added Article 31 (B) in similar year.

So, now Landlords cannot challenge that land reforms acts are illegal. Because Government has protected that acts by Article 31 B.

Law related reservation also added in that 9th schedule.

So, misuse of 9th schedule was prevailing that time.

As per facts of I. R. COELHO Case

The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (the Janmam Act), insofar as it vested forest lands in the Janmam estates in the State of Tamil Nadu, was struck down by this Court in balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu [(1972) 2 SCC 133] because this was not found to be a measure of agrarian reform protected by Article 31-A of the Constitution. Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 was struck down by the Calcutta High Court as being arbitrary and, therefore, unconstitutional and the special leave petition filed against the judgment by the State of West Bengal was dismissed. By the Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, the Janmam Act, in its entirety, was inserted in the Ninth Schedule. By the Constitution (Sixty-sixth Amendment) Act, the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, in its entirety, was inserted in the Ninth Schedule. These insertions were the subject matter of challenge before a Five Judge Bench. The contention urged before the Constitution Bench was that the statutes, inclusive of the portions thereof which had been struck down, could not have been validly inserted in the Ninth Schedule.

According to Waman Rao & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.[(1981) 2 SCC 362], amendments to the Constitution made on or after 24th April, 1973 by which the Ninth Schedule was amended from time to time by inclusion of various Acts, regulations therein were open to challenge on the ground that they, or any one or more of them, are beyond the constituent power of Parliament since they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution or its basic structure. The decision in Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. [(1980) 3 SCC 625)], Maharaja Sahib Shri Singhji V. Union of India & Ors.[(1981) 1 SCC 166] were also noted and it was observed that the judgment in Waman Rao needs to be reconsidered by a larger Bench so that the apparent inconsistencies therein are reconciled and it is made clear whether an Act or regulation which, or a part of which, is or has been found by this Court to be violative of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31 can be included in the Ninth Schedule or whether it is only a constitutional amendment amending the Ninth Schedule which damages or destroys the basic structure of the Constitution that can be struck down. While referring these matters for decision to a larger Bench, it was observed that preferably the matters be placed before a Bench of nine Judges.

As per Court's view
The object behind Article 31B is to remove difficulties and not to obliterate part III in its entirety or judicial review. Exclusion of fundamental rights would result in nullification of the basic structure doctrine, the object of which is to protect basic features of the Constitution. Thus insertion of laws and regulations in the 9th Schedule despite being permissible, will not make any such laws or regulations immune from judicial review. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that if the validity of any 9th Schedule law has already been upheld by the Supreme Court (in its earlier judgments), it would not be open to challenge such law again on the principles declared by this judgment.However, if a law is held to be violative of any rights in Part III is subsequently incorporated in the Ninth Schedule after 24th April, 1973, such a violation/ infraction shall be open to challenge on the und that it destroys or damages the basic structure as indicated in Article 21 read with Article 14, Article 19 and the principles underlying thereunder. Supreme Court further said that judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the constitution, thus no law can be immunized from judicial review even by a constitutional amendment and insertion of such law in 9th Schedule.