I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu Flashcards
When was I.R. Coelho decided?
2007
What was the Bench Strength for I.R. Coelho? Who gave the opinion?
9 Judge Bench.
Sabharwal C.J.
What was the date of the decision in Golaknath’s case?
27 Feb 1967
What was the date of the decision in Keshavananda Bharati’s case?
24 April 1973
What was the main issue in I.R. Coelho?
The nature and character of protection provided by Art. 31-B to laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24.04.1973.
What was the significance of the date 24.04.1973?
It was the date of judgment in Keshavananda Bharati’s case.
Why was the order of reference to a 9-Judge Bench made in I.R. Coelho?
The referral order in the I.R. Coelho case noted the decisions in the Waman Rao’s case, the Minerva Mills case and the Bhim Singhji case and identified some inconsistencies therein which needed reconciliation and consideration by a larger bench of 9 judges.
In Waman Rao’s case, the SC (Justice Chandrachud) held that amendments adding laws or regulations to the Ninth Schedule on or after after 24.04.1973 could be challenged on the grounds that they are beyond the constituent power of Parliament since they violate the Constitution’s basic structure. A similar view was taken by Justice Bhagawati in the Minerva Mills case on the basis that, from 24.04.1973, Parliament was aware of the limits on its constituent power.
In Bhim Singhji’s case, a Constitution Bench of the S.C that Section 27(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation act, 1976 was unconstitutional since it violated Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f). The said Act had been introduced into the Ninth Schedule after the 24.04.1973. The opinions of Justice Tulzapurkar and AP Sen were based on the violation of the fundamental rights under Art. 14 and 19(1)(f) respectively. However, the opinion of J. Krishna Iyer, in addition to violation of Art. 14, also found that the impugned provision violated the basic feature of “equal justice”.
In the referral order, the SC felt that certain apparent inconsistencies in the Waman Rao Judgment need to be reconciled and considered by a Larger Bench: especially whether an Act or a Regulation, which or a part of which, has been found violative of Arts. 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 that can be struck down.
What were the facts and ratio of the Bhim Singhji’s case?
In Bhim Singhji’s case, a Constitution Bench of the S.C that Section 27(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation act, 1976 was unconstitutional since it violated Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f). The said Act had been introduced into the Ninth Schedule after the 24.04.1973. The opinions of Justice Tulzapurkar and AP Sen were based on the violation of the fundamental rights under Art. 14 and 19(1)(f) respectively. However, the opinion of J. Krishna Iyer, in addition to violation of Art. 14, also found that the impugned provision violated the basic feature of “equal justice”.
Which constitutional amendment introduced Arts. 31-A and 31-B? Why was it enacted?
1st constitutional amendment (1951).
Immediately after independence, the various land reform legislation were enacted by the State Governments. These were held constitutionally invalid by various High Courts (Patna, Allahabad and Nagpur) on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. The challenges were pending in the SC.
It was in this background that Arts. 31A and 31B were introduced. In the Sajjan Sigh case, it was noted that the genesis of the amendment was to assist the State Legislatures in giving effect to economic policy to bring about much needed agrarian reforms.
Which judgment considered the validity of the 1st Constitutional Amendment?
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) - 4 Judge Bench - Patanjali Sastri CJI
Constitutional amendments are not “law” within the meaning of Art. 13(2) of the Constitution, since they are enacted in the exercise of constituent power and not ordinary legislative power. The amendment was upheld.
Which judgment considered the 17th Constitutional Amendment? What was the majority opinion? What was the concurring opinion? How did they differ?
Sajjan Singh v. Union of India (1965) - 5 Judges
Majority Opinion - Gajendragadkar CJ (reiterated the holding in Shankari Prasad) In addition, held that:\
(i) genesis of the 1st constitutional amendment was to assist the State Legislatures in giving effect to economic policy to bring about much needed agrarian reforms.
(ii) Impugned Act does not effect change in Art. 226 and does not require state ratification under Art. 368(2) proviso.
Concurring Opinion - Hidayatullah and Mudholkar In addition raised the question whether a change in a basic feature would be a mere amendment or would it amount to a re-writing of the Constitution, if the latter, then would it fall within the scope of Art. 368?
