Facts of the case
- A land reform legislation was enacted and subsequently inserted into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution in the year 2010.
- The objective of including laws in the Ninth Schedule is to provide them protection from judicial review under Article 31B.
- However, the petitioner is now seeking to challenge the validity of the legislation on the ground that it violates Fundamental Rights, particularly those guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
Issues in the case
- Whether laws included in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are immune from judicial review.
- Whether such a law can be tested for violation of Fundamental Rights, particularly Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), and 21 (life and liberty).
- Whether inclusion in the Ninth Schedule grants blanket protection against constitutional challenge.
- Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and include laws in the Ninth Schedule is subject to limitations under the basic structure doctrine.
Principles associated with it
- Article 31B states that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are protected from being declared void on the ground of inconsistency with Fundamental Rights.
- However, in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that any law inserted into the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, is subject to judicial review.
- The Court held that such laws must conform to the basic structure of the Constitution, including the essential features of Fundamental Rights.
- If a law violates the core principles of Part III, especially Articles 14, 19, and 21, it can be struck down even if placed in the Ninth Schedule.
- The Parliament’s power to amend and insert laws into the Ninth Schedule is not unlimited and must adhere to constitutional limitations.
Judgement
- The validity of the land reform legislation inserted into the Ninth Schedule in 2010 can indeed be challenged if it violates Fundamental Rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Inclusion in the Ninth Schedule does not offer absolute immunity post-Kesavananda Bharati and I.R. Coelho rulings.
- The Supreme Court can review such a law and strike it down if it is found to destroy or damage Fundamental Rights forming part of the basic structure.
- Therefore, the petitioner has a valid constitutional remedy to challenge the legislation despite its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule.
