Chapter 28 Judicial Review Protecting Constitutional Supremacy

Origin and Development of Judicial Review

The doctrine of judicial review has its roots firmly planted in the legal landscape of the United States. It was first articulated in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which remains a foundational moment in constitutional law. This case marked the first time that the judiciary explicitly asserted its authority to review laws and executive actions to determine their compatibility with the Constitution. The development of judicial review was significantly shaped by John Marshall, who served as the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court at that time. Marshall’s opinion in this case established the judiciary’s power to declare laws unconstitutional, thereby positioning the courts as a guardian of the Constitution and a check on legislative and executive powers.

Judicial review, in essence, is the process by which courts examine the constitutionality of legislative acts or executive actions. It originated in the United States as a means to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and ensure that no law or executive action could supersede constitutional principles. The development of this doctrine was a pivotal moment in the evolution of American constitutional law, setting a precedent for other nations to follow. The case of Marbury v. Madison not only established the principle but also clarified the role of the judiciary as an arbiter in constitutional conflicts. The key figures involved in this development include John Marshall, whose authoritative opinion articulated and solidified the doctrine, and the case itself, which remains a cornerstone of American constitutional jurisprudence. This development underscored the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government capable of checking the powers of the legislature and the executive whenever their actions threaten constitutional integrity.

The United States’ development of judicial review set an important precedent for many countries, including India, highlighting the judiciary’s vital role in maintaining constitutional supremacy. It underscores the judiciary’s function as a guardian of fundamental rights and constitutional principles, serving as a limit on legislative and executive overreach. The doctrine’s evolution in the USA demonstrates a commitment to the rule of law and constitutionalism, principles that have influenced numerous democracies around the world.

Judicial Review in India

In India, the concept of judicial review is enshrined explicitly within the constitutional framework. Unlike the United States, where judicial review emerged from judicial interpretation, the Indian Constitution explicitly confers the power of judicial review on the judiciary, which includes both the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This constitutional grant ensures that courts in India have the authority to examine laws passed by the legislature and actions undertaken by the executive to verify their conformity with the Constitution. The Indian approach emphasizes the importance of judicial independence and the judiciary’s role as the ultimate interpreter of constitutional provisions.

A crucial development in Indian constitutional law is the Supreme Court’s declaration that judicial review constitutes a basic feature of the Constitution. This doctrine, commonly known as the Basic Structure Doctrine, was articulated by the Supreme Court to safeguard essential features of the Constitution from being altered or abolished through amendments. The Court has clarified that the power of judicial review cannot be curtailed or excluded, even by a constitutional amendment. This means that no law or constitutional change can undermine the judiciary’s authority to review and strike down laws or executive actions that violate constitutional principles. Such rulings reinforce the judiciary's role as a protector of fundamental rights and constitutional supremacy.

The Indian Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, explicitly provides the legal basis for judicial review. The Supreme Court of India, as the apex judicial authority, bears the responsibility of safeguarding the Constitution’s core principles. By declaring judicial review as part of its basic structure, the Court has ensured its inviolability, thereby maintaining the delicate balance of power among the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches. This approach reflects India’s commitment to uphold constitutional supremacy and protect individual rights against potential encroachments by other branches of government.

The development of judicial review in India reveals a judicial philosophy rooted in constitutional interpretation and judicial independence. It emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the core principles of the Constitution, ensuring that no government action can override fundamental rights or undermine the constitutional order. The judiciary’s power to review laws and executive actions acts as a vital check, preserving the integrity of India’s democratic framework and preventing arbitrary exercises of power. This approach underlines the essential role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution, tasked with maintaining the rule of law and defending the constitutional ethos.

Connections and Context

Both the American and Indian experiences with judicial review demonstrate its critical importance as a constitutional safeguard. The development in the USA, spearheaded by the Marbury v. Madison case, set a fundamental precedent that underscored the judiciary’s role in limiting legislative and executive powers through constitutional interpretation. This American precedent influenced many countries, including India, to adopt judicial review as an essential feature of their constitutional systems. In India, the explicit constitutional provisions and judicial interpretation have reinforced the doctrine’s significance, making it a cornerstone of constitutional governance.

The Indian approach emphasizes the importance of constitutional safeguards that protect the basic features of the Constitution, with judicial review being one of the most vital. By declaring it a basic feature, the Supreme Court has ensured that judicial review remains an inviolable part of India’s constitutional landscape, capable of defending the Constitution against any attempt to diminish its authority. This approach reflects a broader recognition that an independent judiciary and robust judicial review are essential for maintaining the balance of power, safeguarding fundamental rights, and upholding the rule of law.

In conclusion, judicial review is a fundamental constitutional principle that originated in the USA and was later adopted and adapted by India. It serves as a vital mechanism for ensuring that laws and executive actions conform to constitutional principles, thereby protecting democratic values and individual rights. The development of judicial review, both in the USA and India, highlights its significance in safeguarding constitutional integrity and maintaining the rule of law. As a core feature of constitutional democracy, judicial review continues to be a powerful instrument for upholding the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuring accountability among the branches of government.

Judicial Review: Protecting Constitutional Supremacy

Judicial Review in Indian Polity

Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Indian constitutional framework, representing the power of the judiciary to assess the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders issued by both the Central and State governments. Through this process, courts examine whether laws and administrative actions conform to the provisions and principles enshrined in the Constitution. If they are found to violate the Constitution, such laws or orders are declared illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid, rendering them null and void and preventing their enforcement. This mechanism ensures that the legislative and executive branches operate within the constitutional limits, safeguarding the supremacy of the Constitution and maintaining the constitutional balance of power.

Justice Syed Shah Mohamed Quadri, a distinguished jurist, classifies judicial review into three broad categories: review of constitutional amendments, legislation, and administrative actions. This classification helps in understanding the scope and application of judicial review, highlighting its role in scrutinizing different types of governmental actions and ensuring they adhere to constitutional principles. The Supreme Court of India, as the highest judicial authority, has exercised this power in several landmark cases, shaping the contours of Indian constitutional law and reinforcing the judiciary's role as the guardian of the Constitution.

One of the earliest and most significant cases in this domain was the Golaknath case of 1967. This case addressed the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the judiciary’s authority to review such amendments. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, asserting that the Constitution's basic structure must be maintained and protected from arbitrary alterations. This decision emphasized the importance of judicial review as a check on legislative power and laid the foundation for future judicial interventions.

The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case marked a turning point in Indian constitutional law. In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of the "basic structure" of the Constitution. The Court held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, these amendments cannot alter its fundamental features, such as democracy, secularism, and fundamental rights. This case significantly limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and reinforced the judiciary’s role in safeguarding its essential features through judicial review. It underscored that the judiciary has the authority to strike down amendments that violate the basic structure, thus acting as a protector of constitutional integrity.

Further reinforcing the judiciary’s role, the 2015 Supreme Court decision declared certain constitutional amendments and the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) Act unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which sought to establish the NJAC for the appointment of judges, finding it violated the independence of the judiciary and the basic structure of the Constitution. This ruling reaffirmed the judiciary’s power of judicial review to scrutinize legislative actions, especially those that attempt to undermine constitutional principles or alter the fundamental features of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s authority in exercising judicial review originates from its constitutional role as the interpreter and protector of the Constitution. It ensures that laws enacted by Parliament or State legislatures do not breach constitutional provisions. Justice Quadri’s classification helps in understanding the different spheres where judicial review applies, whether it is in the context of constitutional amendments, legislation, or administrative actions, each of which can be subjected to judicial scrutiny.

Several entities play crucial roles in this process, most notably the Supreme Court of India, which stands as the ultimate arbiter in constitutional disputes. The Court’s decisions have often set important precedents, shaping the understanding of constitutional limitations and the scope of legislative and executive powers. Justice Quadri’s insights into judicial review further emphasize its significance in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuring that the powers of the legislative and executive branches are exercised within constitutional bounds.

The concept of judicial review is deeply rooted in the broader context of constitutional governance, acting as a vital check on legislative and executive excesses. It helps in maintaining the balance of power among the organs of government and preserves the core principles of democracy, fundamental rights, and rule of law. Landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati have shaped the doctrine of judicial review, emphasizing its role in protecting the basic structure of the Constitution and preventing any amendments or laws that could undermine it.

In conclusion, judicial review is not merely a legal doctrine but a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy. It ensures that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, guarding against arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the legislative and executive branches. Through landmark rulings and judicial activism, the judiciary has consistently reaffirmed its authority to scrutinize and invalidate laws or amendments that threaten the constitutional fabric. This power acts as a vital safeguard, ensuring that the democratic principles and fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution are upheld and preserved for future generations.

Judicial Review: Protecting Constitutional Principles

Judicial Review in India: Its Significance, Role, and Impact on Constitutional Governance

Judicial review is a fundamental constitutional power that plays a vital role in upholding the core principles of Indian democracy. It is the authority vested primarily in the Supreme Court of India to examine laws and executive actions to ensure they conform to the provisions of the Constitution. This power is essential for maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution, preserving the delicate federal balance between the Centre and the States, and safeguarding the Fundamental Rights of citizens. The importance of judicial review in India cannot be overstated, as it acts as a guardian of the Constitution and a check on legislative and executive powers.

At its core, judicial review is the judiciary’s power to scrutinize laws passed by Parliament and the state legislatures, as well as actions taken by the executive branch, to determine their constitutionality. The principle of the supremacy of the Constitution asserts that it is the highest law in the country, and all laws, policies, and governmental actions must align with its mandates. This ensures that no law or action can override constitutional provisions, thereby maintaining the rule of law. The concept of federal equilibrium further underscores the importance of judicial review; it ensures a balance of power between the central government and the state governments, preventing either from becoming overly dominant and thereby protecting the independence and autonomy of states within the Union.

Fundamental Rights, which form the cornerstone of citizens’ liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, are also protected through judicial review. The courts have the authority to strike down laws or executive actions that violate these rights. This safeguard ensures that citizens’ freedoms—such as the right to equality, freedom of speech, and personal liberty—are not infringed upon unjustly or arbitrarily by the state. The Indian judiciary’s exercise of judicial review is rooted in landmark judgments that have established its pivotal role in constitutional interpretation and enforcement.

The Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has consistently emphasized the significance of judicial review. It is viewed as an essential tool for enforcing the supremacy of the Constitution. The Court acts as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, clarifying ambiguous provisions and deciding disputes that concern constitutional validity. This role was cemented through landmark judgments, such as the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, which articulated the doctrine of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. According to the Court, certain fundamental features—like democracy, secularism, and judicial sovereignty—cannot be altered or destroyed even through constitutional amendments. Such judgments affirm the Court’s power to review laws and amendatory acts to ensure they do not compromise the foundational principles of the Constitution.

Judicial review as a constitutional power is exercised through a process of judicial interpretation, where courts assess the validity of laws and executive actions by examining whether they conform to the constitutional framework. This process is vital for ensuring that the legislative and executive branches do not overstep their constitutional limits. Through judicial interpretation, the judiciary clarifies constitutional provisions and fills gaps where legislation might be vague or inconsistent. This function of judicial review is paramount in adapting the Constitution to the changing socio-political landscape, making it relevant and effective across generations.

The Supreme Court’s role in this context is reinforced by landmark judgments, which have repeatedly affirmed its authority to scrutinize laws and executive actions. These judgments have established judicial review as a core constitutional principle, ensuring that all branches of government operate within their constitutional boundaries. Through this mechanism, the Court acts as a guardian of constitutional supremacy, protecting citizens’ rights and maintaining the balance of power.

The significance of judicial review extends beyond mere legality checks; it is integral to the functioning of constitutional governance. It ensures the Constitution remains a living document, capable of adapting to contemporary issues and challenges. By exercising judicial review, courts uphold the rule of law, protect individual freedoms, and preserve the federal structure of the Indian Union. This power also reinforces the doctrine of separation of powers, ensuring that no single branch—legislative, executive, or judiciary—exceeds its constitutional authority.

Furthermore, judicial review embodies the principle of constitutional interpretation, a process through which courts interpret the meaning and scope of constitutional provisions to uphold their intent and purpose. This interpretation is crucial in resolving ambiguities, filling legislative gaps, and ensuring laws are consistent with fundamental principles. The Court’s commitment to upholding the basic structure of the Constitution—recognized as an unamendable core—serves as a guiding limit on the powers of the legislature and executive, thereby maintaining the integrity of the constitutional framework.

In conclusion, judicial review in India is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy, ensuring that the laws and actions of the government adhere to the supreme law of the land—the Constitution. It acts as a safeguard against arbitrary rule, protects fundamental rights, and sustains the federal balance. The Indian judiciary’s proactive role in exercising judicial review highlights its importance in maintaining the rule of law, adapting the Constitution to new realities, and safeguarding democratic principles. As India continues to evolve, judicial review remains an indispensable tool for preserving constitutional integrity and upholding the ideals of justice, liberty, and equality for all citizens.

Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review

Understanding the Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review in India

Though the phrase ‘Judicial Review’ does not find explicit mention in the Indian Constitution, its foundational principles and powers are implicitly embedded within various constitutional provisions. The judiciary, comprising the Supreme Court and the High Courts, is conferred with the essential authority to examine and evaluate laws and executive actions to ensure their conformity with the Constitution. This vital function establishes the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution, safeguarding the rule of law and maintaining the supremacy of constitutional mandates.

At the heart of this setup lies the Indian Constitution itself, the supreme legal document that provides the framework for judicial review through a series of specific Articles. These provisions collectively empower courts to scrutinize laws and actions, thereby reinforcing the judiciary’s role as the ultimate interpreter and protector of constitutional principles. This constitutional architecture effectively positions the judiciary as a key arbiter capable of striking down unconstitutional laws, ensuring that legislative and executive actions remain within constitutional bounds.

A detailed examination of the Articles that grant judicial review powers reveals a comprehensive legal framework. For instance, Article 13 is a cornerstone, declaring that all laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be null and void. This provision explicitly establishes the judiciary’s authority to invalidate legislation that violates individual rights, thereby reinforcing the protection of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Similarly, Article 32 enshrines the right of individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights. It also empowers the Court to issue directions, orders, or writs—such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari—to rectify violations and uphold constitutional rights.

The scope of judicial review extends beyond fundamental rights to encompass the jurisdiction and legislative competence of various laws. Articles 16 and 245, for example, delineate the scope of laws related to employment and the territorial and subject matter jurisdiction of Parliament and State legislatures. These provisions specify the authority of courts to examine whether laws enacted by legislative bodies conform to constitutional parameters. Additionally, Articles 251 and 254 address conflicts between central and state laws, stipulating that in cases of conflict, central laws prevail and state laws that contradict the Union legislation are rendered void. This conflict resolution mechanism is integral to maintaining constitutional supremacy and ensuring uniformity in the legal framework across different levels of government.

Furthermore, Article 372 ensures the continuity of pre-constitutional laws, validating their operation unless expressly repealed or amended, thereby providing legal stability amidst constitutional transitions. The courts exercise judicial review by assessing whether existing or proposed laws infringe upon constitutional guarantees or exceed legislative competence. When laws violate constitutional principles, the judiciary has the power to declare them invalid, effectively nullifying unconstitutional legislation and reinforcing constitutional supremacy.

Fundamental Rights form a core component of this judicial review process. The judiciary acts as a custodian, ensuring that legislation and executive actions do not infringe upon these rights, which are protected and enforceable through judicial intervention. Writs issued by courts serve as powerful legal tools to secure individual rights and provide remedies against unlawful state actions. These judicial mechanisms collectively sustain the constitutional fabric and uphold individual freedoms against potential overreach by legislative or executive branches.

In summary, the Indian Constitution, through its carefully crafted Articles, implicitly bestows the power of judicial review upon the Supreme Court and High Courts. This authority is pivotal in maintaining the delicate balance of power among the different organs of government, safeguarding fundamental rights, resolving conflicts between laws, and ensuring the constitution’s supremacy. The judiciary’s role as the ultimate interpreter and enforcer of constitutional provisions underscores its importance in preserving the rule of law and upholding the constitutional values that define the Indian democracy. This intricate legal architecture exemplifies the Constitution’s intent to create a resilient and independent judiciary capable of protecting citizens’ rights and maintaining constitutional order.

Judicial Review Authority and Scope

Scope of Judicial Review in Indian Polity

The scope of judicial review in India encompasses the authority of courts, primarily the Supreme Court and the High Courts, to assess the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. This power is fundamental to maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuring that laws and actions conform to constitutional provisions. Judicial review can be invoked on three primary grounds: if the law or order infringes upon Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution, if it exceeds the legal or constitutional competence of the authority that enacted it, or if it is repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution itself.

Fundamental Rights serve as a cornerstone of Indian constitutionalism, guaranteeing essential civil liberties such as equality, freedom of speech, and religious freedom. These rights are protected through judicial review, enabling courts to strike down laws or executive actions that violate these fundamental guarantees. The competence of authority refers to the legal or constitutional power vested in a particular legislative or executive body; any overreach beyond this scope can be challenged in courts. For example, if a law made by Parliament or a regulation issued by an administrative authority exceeds the powers conferred upon them by the Constitution, it can be declared invalid. The concept of repugnancy arises when there is a conflict or inconsistency between a law or order and the Constitution, with the latter prevailing due to its supreme status.

The process of judicial challenge begins when laws or executive orders are brought before the courts for scrutiny. These legal challenges can lead to judicial scrutiny, and if the courts find that a law or order is unconstitutional, they have the authority to declare it invalid. This mechanism acts as a vital check on legislative and executive powers, ensuring that all government actions adhere to constitutional norms. The judicial review power is exercised through courts that serve as guardians of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, as the apex court of India, holds the ultimate authority to review laws and executive actions for their constitutionality. The High Courts at the state level also possess similar powers, functioning as constitutional courts within their respective jurisdictions.

The Indian system of judicial review is shaped by a delicate balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy. Unlike the United States, where the doctrine of judicial review is more expansive, Indian courts primarily focus on substantive legality rather than reasonableness or policy considerations. This reflects a hybrid approach that combines elements of American judicial supremacy with British parliamentary sovereignty. In the USA, the concept of 'due process of law' embedded in the Constitution affords broad protections to individual rights. It allows courts to examine both substantive and procedural aspects of laws, striking down those that violate fairness or individual rights. Conversely, in India, the Constitution incorporates the principle of 'procedure established by law,' which limits judicial review mainly to assessing whether laws are enacted within the competence of the authority and whether they follow proper legal procedures. Indian courts do not generally delve into the reasonableness or policy behind laws but concentrate on legality and adherence to constitutional authority.

This distinction highlights the different judicial philosophies underlying each system. American courts, empowered by the broad doctrine of 'due process,' serve as expansive protectors of individual rights and can scrutinize laws on multiple grounds, including reasonableness and policy. Indian courts, however, operate within a framework that emphasizes the legality of laws — whether they conform to the constitutional competence of the legislature or authority that enacted them. This limited scope aims to prevent judicial overreach while still safeguarding Fundamental Rights, thus creating a unique synthesis of American judicial supremacy and British parliamentary sovereignty.

The evolution of judicial review in India, therefore, reflects a conscious effort to strike a balance between these influences. India’s system is designed to protect fundamental rights and uphold the constitutional supremacy, yet it respects the legislative sovereignty of Parliament and state legislatures. The courts' primary role is to ensure that laws are within the bounds of constitutional authority, rather than to judge their wisdom or policy merits. This approach underscores the importance of maintaining a stable constitutional order while allowing legislative bodies the freedom to legislate on various issues.

In summary, the scope of judicial review in India is a carefully calibrated feature of its constitutional framework. It empowers courts to invalidate laws and executive actions that infringe upon Fundamental Rights, exceed authority, or conflict with the Constitution. While narrower than the American model, which emphasizes broad protections under 'due process,' Indian courts focus mainly on the legality and constitutional competence of laws. This results in a distinctive system that merges elements of American judicial review with British constitutional principles, fostering a judicial environment that safeguards fundamental rights without undermining parliamentary sovereignty. This hybrid approach ensures that the Indian judiciary functions as a vital guardian of the Constitution, maintaining the delicate equilibrium necessary for the country's constitutional democracy.

Judicial Review and the Ninth Schedule: Balancing Protection and Fundamental Rights

Judicial Review of Laws in the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution

The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution has historically played a significant role in shielding certain laws from judicial scrutiny, especially those related to land reforms and socio-economic reforms introduced during the early years of independence. Enacted through the First Constitutional Amendment in 1951, Article 31B was incorporated to protect laws included in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged on the grounds of contravening Fundamental Rights. Originally, this protection was absolute, reflecting the policymakers' intent to safeguard land reform laws and similar measures that aimed to redistribute land and abolish zamindari systems, which were considered essential for social transformation at the time.

The Ninth Schedule comprises a list of laws that are immune from judicial review concerning Fundamental Rights, effectively providing a legal shield to legislation primarily aimed at land reforms. These laws were added via constitutional amendments, starting with 13 laws in 1951, and expanding to 282 by 2016. This expansion underscores the emphasis placed on socio-economic legislation during the formative years of India’s constitutional development. The immunity granted under Article 31B was initially absolute, which meant that laws once included in the Ninth Schedule could not be challenged in courts, regardless of their impact on citizens' rights or the constitutional framework.

This immunity, however, was not without controversy. Over time, the judiciary began to scrutinize the scope of this protection, especially as some laws in the Ninth Schedule started to be challenged for their potential infringement on Fundamental Rights. The landmark case of I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu in 2007 marked a turning point in this regard. The Supreme Court clarified that laws in the Ninth Schedule are not beyond judicial review if they violate Fundamental Rights or damage the foundational principles of the Constitution, particularly the so-called "basic structure." Laws enacted after April 24, 1973, which is the date of the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment, can be challenged if they contravene Articles 14, 15, 19, or 21 of the Constitution, which protect rights such as equality, freedom, and life.

The Coelho case underscored the importance of the basic structure doctrine—a judicial principle that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended or destroyed by legislative or constitutional amendments. The Supreme Court emphasized that immunity from judicial review is not an absolute privilege but is subject to the core principles of the Constitution, especially the basic structure. This ruling signified a significant shift, reaffirming that even laws protected under the Ninth Schedule must conform to these core principles if they are enacted or amended after 1973.

Following this judgment, the Court outlined specific principles and tests to evaluate the validity of laws in the Ninth Schedule, especially those enacted post-1973. The Court introduced the "impact test," which assesses whether a law infringes upon fundamental rights or damages the basic structure. The emphasis is on the substance and effects of legislation rather than its form or the manner of enactment. The Court also distinguished between the "form" of a law—how it was passed—and its "effect"—the actual impact it has on constitutional rights and core principles. Laws that adversely affect the basic structure or fundamental rights are subject to challenge, regardless of their inclusion in the Ninth Schedule or their enactment process.

To determine the validity of such laws, the Court employs the "rights test" and the "essence of the right" test. The rights test evaluates whether a law infringes upon fundamental rights and damages the basic structure. The "essence of the right" test examines whether the core or essential part of a fundamental right has been violated. While the latter approach might be suitable in some contexts, post-1973, the rights test has gained prominence, especially when fundamental rights are involved. This approach ensures that laws do not undermine the fundamental constitutional guarantees that protect individual freedoms and equality.

Moreover, the Court established certain finality principles concerning laws in the Ninth Schedule. If a law has been previously upheld by the judiciary, it cannot be challenged again—a doctrine known as res judicata in law. However, laws enacted after 1973 that violate fundamental rights can still be challenged if they threaten the basic structure of the Constitution. Importantly, actions and transactions based on laws enacted before the Court's ruling are protected, ensuring legal certainty and stability for existing legal and economic arrangements. This protection balances the need for judicial oversight with the practical necessity of respecting laws that have already been validated and acted upon.

The Coelho case and subsequent jurisprudence collectively reinforce the supremacy of the Constitution's core values and the principle that legislative and constitutional amendments must conform to the fundamental features of the Constitution. It asserts that immunity conferred to laws in the Ninth Schedule is not an inviolable shield but is subject to constitutional limits, primarily the basic structure doctrine. This judicial approach aligns with the overarching goal of safeguarding Fundamental Rights and the constitutional order against potential legislative overreach, especially in the context of laws that could erode core democratic principles.

In essence, the evolution of judicial review concerning laws in the Ninth Schedule illustrates a dynamic tension between legislative intent and constitutional supremacy. The tests and principles derived from the Coelho judgment serve as vital tools for courts to scrutinize laws added to the Ninth Schedule, ensuring that social reforms do not come at the expense of fundamental rights or the integrity of the constitutional framework. The doctrine emphasizes that while laws aimed at social justice are essential, they must not compromise the foundational principles that guarantee individual freedoms and the democratic fabric of India. This ongoing judicial oversight ensures a delicate balance—protecting the social reforms envisioned in the early years of independence, while also preserving the core values that define the Indian constitutional order.