Why in news?
The Ninth Schedule of the Constitution has once again become a talking point. Some State governments have proposed adding more laws to the schedule so that they cannot be easily challenged in courts. Others worry that using the schedule too freely will weaken fundamental rights. Understanding why the schedule was created helps to grasp the present debate.
Origin and purpose
When India became independent, courts struck down some land‑reform laws because they violated the right to property. To protect such social‑justice laws from judicial review, Parliament inserted the Ninth Schedule through the First Amendment in 1951. Any law placed in the schedule was given immunity from being tested against fundamental rights. Over the decades many land reforms, reservation measures and acts on industries were included.
Legal milestones
- Early judgments: In Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and put laws in the Ninth Schedule.
- Changing approach: In Golak Nath (1967) the Court said that Parliament could not curtail fundamental rights, but this view was reversed in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which introduced the “basic structure” doctrine.
- Review of schedule laws: In the I.R. Coelho judgment (2007) the Court ruled that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 could still be examined if they violated the basic structure. Thus, the schedule is no longer a blanket shield.
Merits and concerns
- Social justice: Supporters argue that the schedule helped implement land redistribution and reservations without constant court challenges. It reflects the Constitution’s commitment to equitable development.
- Overuse: Critics say that States sometimes insert unrelated laws—such as those dealing with local taxes or industries—thereby avoiding necessary scrutiny. This undermines transparency.
- Basic rights at stake: Blanket immunity may clash with fundamental rights like equality or freedom of expression. After the Coelho verdict, such laws can be tested against the basic structure but questions remain about which principles are inviolable.
Way forward
The Ninth Schedule should be used sparingly and only for laws that are essential for social welfare. Parliament and State legislatures need to debate carefully before adding legislation. Judicial review should remain available when laws violate the core values of the Constitution. Greater public consultation and transparency will help build consensus on the use of this special provision.