I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
This is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, which held that laws included in the 9th Schedule are not immune from judicial review if they infringe the basic structure of the Constitution. The court held that the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by Parliament.
Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980)
In this case, the Supreme Court declared that the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and any law that takes away or curtails this power would be unconstitutional.
Waman Rao vs. Union of India (1981)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that laws included in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
This is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court established the basic structure doctrine, which holds that there are certain fundamental features of the Constitution that cannot be amended by the Parliament, even through constitutional amendments.
Kameshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar (1952)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Ninth Schedule was created to protect laws that were passed to implement social and economic reforms from being struck down by courts, but it does not mean that such laws cannot be challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.
In conclusion, the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution provides immunity to laws from being challenged on the basis of violating fundamental rights, but it is not absolute and laws can still be struck down if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
THANK YOU FOR READING