Consolidating the doctrine: Minerva Mills to I.R. Coelho

Detail

Background: what was settled by 1975

• Basic structure means the core features of the Constitution. Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Art. 368, but it cannot destroy these core features.
• Kesavananda Bharati (24 April 1973) created this doctrine. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) was the first case to use it to strike down part of an amendment.
• Parliament then tried to put amendments beyond the courts' reach through the 42nd Amendment (1976). Minerva Mills was the Court's answer. In NCERT's words, the Court "again repeated its earlier stand".
• Amendment count: the latest amendment is the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023. It reserves one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and in the state and Delhi assemblies [5]. The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 16 April 2026 and negatived (voted down) on 17 April 2026, so it did not become law [6].

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): two holdings

• Bench: 5 judges, led by CJI Y.V. Chandrachud. The petitioners challenged the 39th Amendment, which had placed their law in the Ninth Schedule. They also challenged Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, which changed Art. 368 to shut out judicial review of amendments [3].
• Holding 1: Art. 368(4) and (5) struck down [3]
• Art. 368(4) said no court could question a constitutional amendment.
• Art. 368(5) said there is "no limitation whatever" on Parliament's power to amend.

• The Court's reasoning: a limited amending power is itself a basic feature. A Parliament with limited power cannot use that power to make its power unlimited.

• Holding 2: the wider Art. 31C struck down

• Art. 31C protects laws that carry out certain Directive Principles from challenge under Arts. 14 and 19. As added by the 25th Amendment (1971), it covered only Art. 39(b) and (c) (fair sharing of material resources and preventing wealth from piling up in a few hands).
• Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment (1976) extended this cover to all Directive Principles in Part IV.

• The Court held that the harmony and balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles) is basic structure. Making Part IV override all of Part III would destroy that balance.

• Justice P.N. Bhagwati partly dissented. He agreed that Art. 368(4)-(5) were invalid, but he would have upheld the extended Art. 31C.

• Judicial review (the courts' power to strike down laws and actions that break the Constitution) was again declared basic structure.

Provision added by 42nd Amendment (1976)	What it tried to do	Minerva Mills result
Art. 368(4)	Bar courts from questioning any amendment	Struck down: judicial review is basic
Art. 368(5)	Make Parliament's amending power unlimited	Struck down: a limited amending power is basic
Art. 31C (extended)	Let all Directive Principles override Arts. 14 and 19	Struck down: the Part III–Part IV balance is basic

Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981): the cut-off date

• The challenge: the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, which was in the Ninth Schedule. The State relied on Arts. 31A, 31B and 31C to argue that the Act could not be challenged under Arts. 14 and 19 [3].
• Ninth Schedule: a list of laws that Art. 31B (added by the 1st Amendment, 1951) protects from challenge for violating Fundamental Rights.
• The rule: the cut-off is 24 April 1973, the date of Kesavananda.
• Amendments and Ninth Schedule entries made before that date stay valid.

• Entries made on or after that date do not get full protection. They can be tested against the basic structure [3].

• The unamended Art. 31C (the 1971 version, covering only Art. 39(b) and (c)) was upheld.

Further applications, 1987–1997

• S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)
• It dealt with the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, passed under Art. 323A (added by the 42nd Amendment).

• Judicial review is basic structure. Parliament may move cases to tribunals only if they are effective substitutes for the High Courts.

• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)

• Free and fair elections and democracy are basic features.
• The Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law, 52nd Amendment, 1985) was upheld.

• The Court did not use the basic structure test to strike down the whole Schedule. It gave a narrow ruling on procedural grounds [3]: the clause that kept courts out (para 7) was struck down, and the Speaker's decisions remain open to judicial review.

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

• A 9-judge bench held that secularism, federalism and democracy are basic structure.
• It also repeated that judicial review is a basic feature [3].

• So the use of President's rule (central rule over a state under Art. 356) can be checked by the courts.

• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

• It held that the power of judicial review given to the High Courts (Arts. 226/227) and the Supreme Court (Art. 32) is an "integral and essential feature" and part of the inviolable basic structure [3].
• So the clauses excluding these courts, Art. 323A(2)(d) and Art. 323B(3)(d), were struck down.
• Tribunals still work, but their decisions can be challenged before a High Court.

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (11 January 2007)

• Bench: 9 judges. CJI Y.K. Sabharwal wrote the judgment (2007 INSC 28; (2007) 2 SCC 1) [2][3].
• The question: after 24 April 1973, can Parliament use Art. 31B to protect laws from Fundamental Rights just by placing them in the Ninth Schedule? And what does that do to judicial review? [2]
• The holdings:
• After 24 April 1973, despite its wide wording, Art. 31B cannot give unlimited immunity. If a law damages the basic structure, the Ninth Schedule does not protect it [2].
• Such a law is tested against the rights in Part III. Courts look at its actual effect on rights, not just its form (the rights test) [2].
• Arts. 14, 19 and 21 (equality, freedoms, life and personal liberty) "stand on altogether a different footing". Their essence is part of the basic structure [3].

• Using Art. 31B to override all of Part III would also destroy secularism, separation of powers, equality and judicial review [2].

• Result: Ninth Schedule laws added after 24 April 1973 can be struck down if they damage the basic structure. Art. 31B gives no blanket immunity.

• Scale: the Ninth Schedule now lists 284 entries. Entries 87 and 92 were omitted by the 44th Amendment (1978) [4].

Elements of the basic structure, case by case

Case (year)	Elements held to be basic structure
Kesavananda Bharati (1973)	Supremacy of the Constitution; republican and democratic form; secular and federal character; separation of powers; unity and integrity; sovereignty; welfare state
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)	Free and fair elections; rule of law; judicial review
Minerva Mills (1980)	Limited amending power; harmony of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles; judicial review
Sampath Kumar (1987) / L. Chandra Kumar (1997)	Judicial review, including High Court (Arts. 226/227) and Supreme Court (Art. 32) review
Kihoto Hollohan (1992)	Free and fair elections; democracy
S.R. Bommai (1994)	Secularism; federalism; democracy
I.R. Coelho (2007)	Essence of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 [3]
NJAC case, SC Advocates-on-Record Association (2015)	Independence of the judiciary (the 99th Amendment, 2014, was struck down)
Held NOT basic	Right to property (Kesavananda); the 50% cap on reservations as a rigid rule (Janhit Abhiyan, 2022, which upheld the 103rd Amendment on EWS quota)

• There is no complete list. The Court has never given one, and the judiciary decides case by case what counts (NCERT check-your-progress, statements 2–3).

Timeline at a glance

Date	Event
24 Apr 1973	Kesavananda: basic structure doctrine; later the cut-off date
1976	42nd Amendment adds Art. 368(4)-(5) and extends Art. 31C
1980	Minerva Mills strikes both down
1981	Waman Rao fixes the 24 April 1973 cut-off
1987–1997	Sampath Kumar, Kihoto, Bommai, L. Chandra Kumar add to the list of basic features
11 Jan 2007	I.R. Coelho: no blanket immunity under Art. 31B

Prelims Hooks

• Minerva Mills (1980) struck down Art. 368(4) and (5), both added by the 42nd Amendment (1976).
• Minerva Mills: Justice Bhagwati partly dissented, only on the extended Art. 31C. The bench was led by CJI Y.V. Chandrachud.
• Original Art. 31C (25th Amendment, 1971) covered only Art. 39(b) and (c). This version was upheld in Waman Rao (1981). The 42nd Amendment's extension to all Directive Principles was struck down.
• Cut-off date: 24 April 1973. Ninth Schedule entries made after it can be tested against the basic structure (Waman Rao, 1981; I.R. Coelho, 2007).
• I.R. Coelho: 9 judges, CJI Y.K. Sabharwal, 11 January 2007. It protects the essence of Arts. 14, 19 and 21.
• L. Chandra Kumar (1997): High Court review under Arts. 226/227 is basic structure. Trap: tribunals were not abolished; their decisions can be challenged in a High Court.
• Kihoto Hollohan (1992): the Tenth Schedule was upheld, not struck down. Only the clause that kept courts out went.
• Not basic structure: the right to property; the 50% reservation cap as a rigid rule (Janhit Abhiyan, 2022).
• The Ninth Schedule (Art. 31B, 1st Amendment, 1951) has 284 entries [4].

Mains Points

• Limited amending power as a safeguard: Minerva Mills held that a body with limited power cannot make its own power unlimited. This keeps the Constitution supreme, and Parliament is a creature of the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment's attempt to shut out the courts showed why this check matters.
• The balance of rights and directives: Directive Principles guide social justice, but they cannot wipe out Fundamental Rights. Minerva Mills calls the two "two wheels of a chariot". Use this in answers on the conflict between Part III and Part IV, and on land reform.
• The Ninth Schedule after Coelho: it ended the misuse of the Ninth Schedule as a "safe box" for laws. The Schedule now has 284 entries [4], and the rights test exposes them to review. Critics answer that unelected judges now decide what counts as basic structure, and the list keeps changing. This is the democracy-versus-judicial-supremacy debate.
• An open-ended list: the list of basic features stays open (from Kesavananda to NJAC, 2015). This lets courts protect core values. But it makes the outcome of a challenge hard to predict, so case-by-case reasoning and judicial restraint are needed.