The Coelho case refers to the landmark judgement in the case of I.R. Coelho (Dead) Through LRs. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, where the Supreme Court of India held that constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review under the basic structure doctrine.

In this case, the court held that even though the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, the amendments cannot violate or destroy its basic structure. This means that any amendment that fundamentally alters the essential features of the Constitution can be struck down by the judiciary.

Therefore, the Coelho case reaffirmed the importance of judicial review as one of the basic features of the Constitution. Judicial review allows the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring that they do not infringe upon the constitutional rights and principles. It acts as a check on the powers of the other branches of government, preserving the integrity and supremacy of the Constitution.

So, in the context of the Coelho case, it can be said that judicial review is indeed of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution.

The Coelho case, formally known as S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that established several crucial principles about the federal structure of India and the role of judicial review.

Here's what the Coelho case held:

• Federalism and the power of the Centre: The court reaffirmed the principle of federalism in India, stating that while the Centre has powers to dismiss state governments, it must do so only in exceptional circumstances and not on arbitrary grounds. The court emphasized that the dismissal of a state government should be based on "material facts" and "proved misbehavior" by the state government.
• Judicial review and the basic structure doctrine: This case was significant in strengthening the doctrine of basic structure. The court upheld the power of the judiciary to review the actions of the legislature and executive branches and to ensure that these actions don't violate the basic features of the Constitution.
• Defining "basic features": The court, in this case, expanded the definition of "basic features" of the Constitution to include:
• The principle of federalism
• The rule of law
• The separation of powers
• The judicial review
• The fundamental rights
• The secular character of the state
• State autonomy: The court emphasized the autonomy of the states and the need for cooperation between the Centre and the states. It asserted that the Centre cannot use its powers to undermine the autonomy of the states.

Judicial review and its importance:

The Coelho case, along with other landmark judgments, clearly demonstrates the significance of judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution.

• Safeguarding the Constitution: Judicial review acts as a crucial safeguard against the erosion of the Constitution's core principles. It ensures that the actions of the government remain within the boundaries of the Constitution.
• Protecting fundamental rights: Judicial review empowers the judiciary to strike down laws or actions that infringe upon the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
• Ensuring accountability: It holds the executive and legislative branches accountable for their actions, ensuring that they adhere to the constitutional framework.
• Guaranteeing the rule of law: Judicial review plays a vital role in maintaining the rule of law, ensuring that all citizens are subject to the same laws and procedures.

In conclusion:

The Coelho case firmly established the importance of judicial review in safeguarding the basic features of the Constitution. It emphasized the judiciary's role in upholding federalism, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring the rule of law in India. Judicial review serves as a cornerstone of the Indian constitutional framework, protecting the fundamental principles on which the nation is built.

The Coelho case!

In the Coelho case (I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007), the Supreme Court of India held that the 41st Amendment to the Constitution, which introduced Article 31-B and the 9th Schedule, did not destroy the basic features of the Constitution. However, the Court clarified that the provisions inserted in the 9th Schedule could still be subject to judicial review if they violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

In this context, the Coelho case reaffirms the importance of judicial review as a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. It is a crucial check on the power of the legislature and the executive, ensuring that they do not overstep their constitutional limits.

The Coelho case reinforces the idea that judicial review is an essential component of the Constitution's basic structure, which includes the principles of federalism, democracy, secularism, and the rule of law, among others. The Court's ruling emphasizes that even if a law is placed in the 9th Schedule, which was intended to provide immunity from judicial review, the Court can still examine its constitutionality if it violates fundamental rights.

Therefore, it can be said that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution, as it safeguards the rights of citizens and ensures that the Constitution's provisions are upheld. The Coelho case is a significant milestone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, reaffirming the role of the judiciary as a guardian of the Constitution and protector of individual rights.