Consider the following statements: 1) The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. 2) The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Statement 1 is correct. Article 31B, read with the Ninth Schedule, lets Parliament protect specified laws from challenge on the ground that they violate Fundamental Rights. A law is added to the Schedule through a constitutional amendment, not an ordinary Act.

Statement 2 is wrong. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be tested if they violate the basic structure, which was laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973). So the Ninth Schedule is not a bar on judicial review.

• Option B fails because statement 2 is inaccurate.
• Option C fails for the same reason.
• Option D is wrong because statement 1 is true.

Mains link: the Ninth Schedule sits within the Parliament versus judiciary debate over basic structure, and its use for reservations and land reforms is a recurring GS-II theme.

Trap: aspirants remember the older idea that Ninth Schedule laws are immune from courts and pick B or C. After Coelho, that immunity is conditional.