I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu
E545541
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu is a landmark 2007 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine by holding that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the Constitution’s fundamental framework.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5738458 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu Context triple: [basic structure doctrine, usedInCase, I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu]
-
A.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
-
B.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
C.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that struck down the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
D.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
E.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu Target entity description: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu is a landmark 2007 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine by holding that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the Constitution’s fundamental framework.
-
A.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
-
B.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
C.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that struck down the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
D.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
E.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Supreme Court of India judgment
ⓘ
landmark constitutional law case ⓘ |
| alsoKnownAs |
Coelho case
ⓘ
linked to:
IR Coelho case
IR Coelho case ⓘ |
| benchStrength | 9 judges ⓘ |
| benchType | Constitution Bench ⓘ |
| citation | (2007) 2 SCC 1 ⓘ |
| concernedProvision |
Article 31B of the Constitution of India
ⓘ
Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India ⓘ fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution of India ⓘ |
| constitutionalPrincipleReaffirmed |
judicial review as part of the basic structure
ⓘ
limited amending power of Parliament ⓘ supremacy of the Constitution ⓘ |
| country | India ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of India ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2007-01-11 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous judgment ⓘ |
| effectOnNinthSchedule | subjected post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws to basic structure review ⓘ |
| impact |
clarified scope of protection available to laws under Article 31B
ⓘ
strengthened judicial review over socio-economic legislation in the Ninth Schedule ⓘ |
| judge |
A. R. Lakshmanan
ⓘ
B. N. Srikrishna ⓘ C. K. Thakker ⓘ D. K. Jain ⓘ K. G. Balakrishnan ⓘ P. K. Balasubramanyan ⓘ S. H. Kapadia ⓘ Tarun Chatterjee ⓘ Y. K. Sabharwal ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | India ⓘ |
| keyHolding |
fundamental rights forming part of the basic structure cannot be abrogated even by Ninth Schedule placement
ⓘ
immunity under Article 31B is not absolute ⓘ laws in the Ninth Schedule that damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution can be struck down ⓘ laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are subject to judicial review ⓘ the basic structure doctrine applies to constitutional amendments placing laws in the Ninth Schedule ⓘ |
| languageOfJudgment | English ⓘ |
| leadJudge |
Y. K. Sabharwal
ⓘ
linked to:
R. K. Agrawal
|
| legalArea |
basic structure doctrine
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ |
| originatingState | Tamil Nadu ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
ⓘ
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India ⓘ Waman Rao v. Union of India ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine | basic structure doctrine ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | validity of placing state land reform and other laws in the Ninth Schedule ⓘ |
| temporalCutoffDate | 1973-04-24 ⓘ |
| temporalCutoffEvent | Kesavananda Bharati judgment date ⓘ |
| yearOfDecision | 2007 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu Description of subject: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu is a landmark 2007 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine by holding that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the Constitution’s fundamental framework.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.