The Coelho case, officially known as I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), is a significant judgment by the Supreme Court of India. In this case, the court dealt with the constitutional validity of the Ninth Schedule to the Indian Constitution, which provides immunity to laws placed in it from judicial review.

The main issue in the Coelho case was whether laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule are immune from judicial review, particularly with regard to their violation of fundamental rights. The court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are not immune from judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution, especially fundamental rights.

The basic structure doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), implies that certain features of the Constitution are so fundamental that they cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament. This includes principles like the rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, and the protection of fundamental rights.

The Coelho case reaffirmed the significance of judicial review as a key element among the basic features of the Constitution. The court stated that judicial review is a basic feature and an essential aspect of the Constitution, allowing the judiciary to ensure that laws, including those in the Ninth Schedule, do not violate the core principles and fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

In summary, the Coelho case reinforced the idea that judicial review is of paramount importance among the basic features of the Constitution, serving as a check on legislative actions to ensure they do not infringe upon the fundamental principles and rights protected by the Constitution.

or 2nd Approach

Introduction:
In the landmark judgment of I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court affirmed the significance of judicial review as a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution.

Body:

Coelho Case:

In the Coelho case, the court asserted that the power of judicial review is not only a basic feature but also extends to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule, previously considered immune from scrutiny.
The judgment reinforced the idea that the judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the constitutional ethos, ensuring that legislative actions do not violate the core principles of the Constitution.
Judicial Review as a Basic Feature:

Judicial review acts as a guardian of the Constitution, ensuring the supremacy of its principles.
It enables the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws and governmental actions, preventing any encroachment on the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Coelho case further solidified the position that even amendments or laws deemed as ‘protected’ cannot escape judicial review if they undermine the foundational values of the Constitution.
Checks and Balances:

Judicial review serves as a crucial check on the powers of the legislature and executive, maintaining a balance between different branches of the government.
The Coelho case exemplifies how the judiciary acts as a check on potential legislative overreach, reinforcing the delicate equilibrium envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Coelho case underscores the pivotal role of judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution. It reaffirms that the judiciary acts as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that no law, including those placed in the Ninth Schedule, can violate its basic structure. Judicial review, therefore, stands as a cornerstone among the fundamental principles that define the Indian constitutional framework.