Consider the following statements:
- The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
- The validity of a law passed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court, and no judgment can be made on it.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Explanation
Statement 1 is correct
- Ninth Schedule was added to the Constitution by the First Amendment in 1951, along with Article 31-B, with a view to giving a “protective umbrella” to land reform laws to save them from being challenged in courts on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights.
- Article 31-B saves conflict of laws with fundamental rights by giving validation based on “fictional immunity” that laws enacted under it and placed in the Ninth Schedule are immune to challenge in a court of law, even if such a law violates fundamental rights
- The SC upheld the validity of Article 31-B and Parliament’s power to place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule (I R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).
Statement 2 is incorrect
- But as per the SC judgement, laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are open to judicial scrutiny and do not enjoy a blanket protection.
- Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Keshwanand Bharti Judgment on April 24, 1973, when it propounded the “basic structure” doctrine, were open to challenge.
- It laid down a dual test to examine the validity of a Ninth Schedule Law, i.e. first check whether it violates any fundamental right, and if yes, whether the violation also damages or destroys the basic structure. If the answer to both questions is in the affirmative, then only a law placed in the Ninth Schedule can be declared unconstitutional.
