The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution

The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution was introduced to protect laws from being struck down by the judiciary. However, over the years, the scope of this protection has been a matter of debate, and several cases have been fought to determine the limits of this protection. This essay will examine the evolution of laws under the Ninth Schedule and the scope of their review by the judiciary.

Shankari Prasad Case

The Shankari Prasad case was the first landmark case in which the immunity granted to parliament was presented before the court. The question was whether Article 31B read with Schedule 9 was unconstitutional by excluding the scope of judicial review. The court rejected the petition by stating that the amendments made under Article 368 were not affected by the application of Article 13(2). The parliament, under Article 368, is empowered to amend fundamental rights, and at such instances, judicial encroachment is impermissible.

Golaknath Case

In the Golaknath case, the court held that parliament had no power to amend the fundamental rights, including the provisions on personal property. The parliament passed the 24th amendment in 1971, which empowered it to amend any part of the constitution, including the fundamental rights.

Kesavananda Bharati Case

The Kesavananda Bharati case was a landmark decision by the Apex Court through its largest constitutional bench of 13 judges. The court stated that although the amendments made under Article 368 were constitutional, the court was entitled to reject any of them if they violated the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. This case put a check on the enormous power of the parliament by introducing the basic structure doctrine and making the judiciary more powerful.

Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain

A similar matter reached the court in Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain, regarding the 39th amendment by the parliament, which added some controversial laws under the ninth schedule. The court held that ordinary laws placed under the ninth schedule cannot be subjected to the basic structure test, and only the constitutional amendments, which are made through Article 368, are prone to judicial scrutiny if they are violative of basic structure.

Minerva Mills Case

In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court struck down clauses 4 and 5, which were added to Article 368 through the 42nd amendment, which granted unlimited power of legislation to parliament. The doctrine of basic structure and the judgment in the case of Minerva Mills were later affirmed in many subsequent judgments, including Waman Rao v Union of India, I R Coelho, and M Nagaraj.

Why In News

The Ninth Schedule provides a safeguard to laws that are in the larger public interest and need protection from judicial scrutiny, and while their scope of review may be limited, the doctrine of basic structure ensures that the Parliament does not abuse its power by violating the core principles of the Constitution.

MCQs about The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution

1. What was the major landmark case in which the question of immunity granted to parliament was presented before the court?
   A. Golaknath case
   B. Kesavananda Bharati case
   C. Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain
   D. Shankari Prasad Case
   Show Answer
   Correct Answer: D. Shankari Prasad Case
   Explanation: The Shankari Prasad case was the first landmark case where the question of immunity granted to parliament was presented before the court.
2. What did the Kesavananda Bharati case establish?
   A. The Parliament has no power to amend any part of the Constitution including the fundamental rights.
   B. The judiciary has no power to review the laws placed under 9th schedule.
   C. The Parliament is empowered to amend the fundamental rights, but the court is entitled to reject any amendment if it violates the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
   D. Ordinary laws placed under 9th schedule are prone to judicial scrutiny if they are violative of basic structure.
   Show Answer
   Correct Answer: C. The Parliament is empowered to amend the fundamental rights, but the court is entitled to reject any amendment if it violates the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
   Explanation: The Kesavananda Bharati case established the basic structure doctrine and made the judiciary more powerful.
3. Which amendment empowered the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including the fundamental rights?
   A. 42nd amendment
   B. 24th amendment
   C. 1st amendment
   D. 9th amendment
   Show Answer
   Correct Answer: B. 24th amendment
   Explanation: The 24th amendment passed in 1971 empowered the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including the fundamental rights.
4. Which case affirmed the doctrine of basic structure and the judgment in the case of Minerva Mills?
   A. Waman Rao v Union of India
   B. I R Coelho
   C. M Nagaraj
   D. All of the above
   Show Answer
   Correct Answer: D. All of the above
   Explanation: The doctrine of basic structure and the judgment in the case of Minerva Mills was affirmed in subsequent judgments including Waman Rao v Union of India, I R Coelho, and M Nagaraj.

Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions