Roadmap for Answer Writing

1. Introduction

• Brief Overview: Begin with a concise introduction about the Ninth Schedule, its historical context, and its role in the Indian Constitution.
  • Fact: The Ninth Schedule was introduced by the First Amendment Act of 1951.
  • Purpose: It was designed to protect certain laws from being challenged in courts, especially those related to land reforms and social welfare.

2. Primary Objectives Behind the Introduction of the Ninth Schedule

• Protection of Land Reforms: The primary objective was to safeguard laws aimed at land redistribution, which were essential for economic equality and social justice.
  • Fact: Post-independence, the government sought to abolish the zamindari system and redistribute land to promote social welfare.
• Promotion of Social and Economic Justice: Laws included in the Ninth Schedule were meant to promote welfare and address socio-economic inequalities.
  • Fact: These laws were meant to ensure equitable land distribution, aimed at achieving social justice for marginalized communities.
• Judicial Protection: By placing laws in the Ninth Schedule, the government intended to ensure these laws could not be easily challenged in court, especially on grounds of violating Fundamental Rights.
  • Fact: Articles 31A and 31B were added to the Constitution to provide legal protection to these laws.

3. Judicial Review of Laws in the Ninth Schedule

• Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule could not be challenged on the grounds of violating Fundamental Rights (FR).
  • Fact: This case confirmed Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including placing laws in the Ninth Schedule.
• Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1964): The Court upheld the 17th Amendment, which validated land acquisition laws by placing them in the Ninth Schedule.
  • Fact: The judgment protected land acquisition laws from judicial review, reinforcing the initial stance that Ninth Schedule laws are immune to court challenges.
• I.C. Golaknath & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (1967): The Court ruled that amendments that abridge Fundamental Rights are unconstitutional. This case overruled the earlier decisions, signaling a shift in judicial approach.
  • Fact: The Court held that constitutional amendments violating FRs were invalid, setting the stage for future scrutiny of Ninth Schedule laws.
• Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): The landmark case established the basic structure doctrine, which stated that Parliament could amend the Constitution but could not alter its fundamental features.
  • Fact: While the Ninth Schedule was not directly addressed, this case laid the foundation for scrutiny of constitutional amendments.
• Waman Rao vs. Union of India (1981): The Court allowed judicial review for laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, while exempting those before that date from review.
  • Fact: This judgment created a distinction between pre- and post-April 1973 Ninth Schedule laws in terms of judicial scrutiny.
• I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The Supreme Court held that any law added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, is subject to judicial review, even if it is placed in the Ninth Schedule.
  • Fact: The Court ruled that laws post-1973 in the Ninth Schedule are not immune from judicial review, especially when they affect fundamental rights.

4. Conclusion

• Evolution of Judicial Stance: Conclude by discussing how the Supreme Court’s position on the Ninth Schedule has evolved over time, reflecting a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and the protection of fundamental rights.
  • Fact: Over time, the Supreme Court has progressively limited the immunity of laws in the Ninth Schedule, ensuring that laws that violate basic constitutional principles can be reviewed.

Relevant Facts for Answer

1. First Amendment Act (1951): Introduced the Ninth Schedule and Articles 31A and 31B, aimed at protecting land reform laws from judicial scrutiny.
2. Shankari Prasad Case (1951): Upheld the First Amendment and Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including placing laws in the Ninth Schedule.
3. Sajjan Singh Case (1964): Upheld the validity of land acquisition laws under the Ninth Schedule.
4. I.C. Golaknath Case (1967): Ruled that any amendment affecting fundamental rights would be void.
5. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Established the “basic structure” doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend essential features of the Constitution.
6. Waman Rao Case (1981): Allowed judicial review of laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973.
7. I.R. Coelho Case (2007): Held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial review, especially if they violate fundamental rights.