Conclusions

In conclusion, we hold that :

(i) A law that abrogates or abridges rights guaranteed by Part III of theConstitution may violate the basic structure doctrine or it may not. If formeris the consequence of law, whether by amendment of any Article of Part III or byan insertion in the Ninth Schedule, such law will have to be invalidated inexercise of judicial review power of the Court. The validity or invalidity wouldbe tested on the principles laid down in this judgment. 

(ii) The majority judgment in Kesavananda Bharati's case read with IndiraGandhi's case, requires the validity of each new constitutional amendment to bejudged on its own merits. The actual effect and impact of the law on the rightsguaranteed under Part III has to be taken into account for determining whetheror not it destroys basic structure. The impact test would determine the validityof the challenge.

(iii) All amendments to the Constitution made on or after 24th April, 1973 bywhich the Ninth Schedule is amended by inclusion of various laws therein shallhave to be tested on the touchstone of the basic or essential features of theConstitution as reflected in Article 21 read with Article 14, Article 19, andthe principles underlying them. To put it differently even though an Act is putin the Ninth Schedule by a constitutional amendment, its provisions would beopen to attack on the ground that they destroy or damage the basic structure ifthe fundamental right or rights taken away or abrogated pertains or pertain tothe basic structure.

(iv) Justification for conferring protection, not blanket protection, on thelaws included in the Ninth Schedule by Constitutional Amendments shall be amatter of Constitutional adjudication by examining the nature and extent ofinfraction of a Fundamental Right by a statute, sought to be Constitutionallyprotected, and on the touchstone of the basic structure doctrine as reflected inArticle 21 read with Article 14 and Article 19 by application of the"rights test" and the "essence of the right" test taking thesynoptic view of the Articles in Part III as held in Indira Gandhi's case.Applying the above tests to the Ninth Schedule laws, if the infraction affectsthe basic structure then such a law(s) will not get the protection of the NinthSchedule.

This is our answer to the question referred to us vide Order dated 14thSeptember, 1999 in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1999) 7 SCC 580].

(v) If the validity of any Ninth Schedule law has already been upheld by thisCourt, it would not be open to challenge such law again on the principlesdeclared by this judgment. However, if a law held to be violative of any rightsin Part III is subsequently incorporated in the Ninth Schedule after 24th April,1973, such a violation/infraction shall be open to challenge on the ground thatit destroys or damages the basic structure as indicated in Article 21 read withArticle14, Article 19 and the principles underlying thereunder. 

(vi) Action taken and transactions finalized as a result of the impugned Actsshall not be open to challenge.

We answer the reference in the above terms and direct that the petitions/appealsbe now placed for hearing before a
Three Judge Bench for decision in accordance with the principles laid downherein.