Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975): Landmark Verdict on Electoral Malpractice, Judicial Review, and the 39th Constitutional Amendment

 

Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain, (1975)

Case Title:-

           Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain & Anr.

Citation:-

           Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975) 2 SCC 159.

Author- Archana Gupta, B.A.LLB(Hons), SS Khanna Degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj

Abstract:-

            Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) was the corner judgment in the legal system of India in which the election of Indira Gandhi as a Prime Minister was contended by Raj Narain, stating that she has immorally rehearsed malpractices to win the election. Also, the unlimited power used by the Parliament over Judiciary was questioned. Moreover, numerous other indigenous vittles as contended in this case. Likewise, questions were raised regarding the validity of 39^th  Constitutional Amendment. In this case, the reference of basic structure of constitution which is laid down in the case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), has taken. It was also contended in this case that elections should be unbiased, and the vittles of separations of powers between the executive, the legislature and judiciary as well as the principles of judicial review should be conduct in indigenous manner. 

Primary Details:-

Jurisdiction:-	Supreme court of India
Case Number:-	Civil Appeal, 887 of 1975
Appellant:-	Indira Nehru Gandhi
Respondents:-	Shri Raj Narain
Case filed on:-	24th, April, 1971
Judgment passed on:-	7th, November, 1975
Bench:-	Chief Justice A.N. Ray Justice H.R. Khanna Justice K.K. Mathew Justice M.H. Beg Justice Y.V. Chandrachud
Laws Discusssed:-	Article 14, 31-B, 368, and 329-A of the Constitution of India, and Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951.
Case Summary Prepared By:-	Archana Gupta B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) S.S. Khanna Girls’ Degree College, Prayagraj. (Constituent of University of Allahabad)

 

 

 

Keywords:-

                        39^th Constitutional Amendment, Articles 329, 329-A, 14, 122, 368, etc, judicial review, separation of powers, rule of law, emergency due to internal disturbance, Representation of People’s Act 1974, Election Laws Act 1975, Audi alteram partem.

 

Brief facts of the case:-

                        In 1971, 5^th Lok Sabha General Elections were held in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh in which two opponents; Indira Gandhi from Congress side and Raj Narain, the leader of Ram Manohar Lohia’s SSP from the other side was stood. Latterly, Indira Gandhi won the election by 352 votes out of 518 and became the Prime Minister of India. But Raj Narain had strong faith in himself that he will win the elections but it couldn’t be so, due to which he filed the petition before the Allahabad High Court on 24^th April 1971, stating that she had immorally rehearsed malpractices to win the elections as well as she used political coffers and also distributed liquor, robes etc. to gain the votes.

After hearing,  Justice Jagmohan Lal of The Allahabad High Court held in his judgment that Indira Gandhi is found guilty and also she has been violated the vittles of  Representation of the People’s Act, 1971 under Article 123(7). Ultimately, it was held in the judgment that she cannot contest elections for six years and also it was ordered to appoint a new Prime minister within 20 days.

Due to unsatisfied with the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, she appealed to Apex Court. Since, the Court was on recess hence the injunction order was issued due to which Indira Gandhi was barred from participating in debates and voting in the Lok Sabha but she could attend Administrative sessions.

Meanwhile, the emergency was also declared due to internal disturbance between 1975-1977. Latterly, on 10^th August 1975, The President, Fakhrudeen Ali Ahmed passed 39^th Constitutional Amendment which introduced new provision under Article 329-A. This new provision states that the election of the speaker and Prime Minister cannot be questioned in the Court of Law rather it can only dealt by the commission formed by the Parliament for that purpose. Due to this the restriction over power of the Supreme Court regarding election, was assessed.

Issues raised in the case:-

                        First issue raised before the Court that whether the election of the Indira Gandhi was valid or not? Since the allegations were raised by Raj Narain that Indira Gandhi immorally rehearsed malpractices and also she was used political resources to win the elections. Hence, it was alleged that whether she hold the position as Prime Minister constitutionally or not?

Next issue was raised regarding Article 329-A clause (4). Since clause (4) of article 329-A based upon the election which states that law made by the Parliament before 39^th Amendment shall not be deemed to be void. Hence, it was alleged whether this is legal or not?

Other issue came before the Court regarding two acts which are related with election. These two acts are:- Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act 1974 and other act was Election Laws (Amendment) Act 1975. It was alleged whether these acts are constitutionally valid or not?

 

Contentions from the parties:-

Appellant’s Contention:-

                        When allegations were raised against her and after the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, she found to be guilty then she approached directly to the Supreme Court and argued that if there is no power regarding the election matters and political matters in the hands of the judiciary then how election matters and political matters should be deal by judiciary because it has no right over it to deal with these matters.

Further she argued with reference to 39^th Constitutional Amendment which added a new Article i.e. Article 329-A. It was alleged that no election of either House of the Parliament or of the person holding the offices shall be questioned in the Court of Law except the authority was appointed for particular purpose. Moreover, it was also argued by her that Law made before the 39^th Amendment regarding the elections shall not be deemed to be void.

It was also submitted by her that this amendment infringed the Article 14 which ensures Equality before Law because it undermines the role of judiciary and also this amendment was against the basic structure of the Constitution.

Respondent’s Contention:-

                        Raj Narain in his first argument submitted as that 39^th Constitutional Amendment and both the acts i.e. Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, infringed the rules of basic structure of the Constitution such as judicial review. Latterly, it was also contended by him that restricting the power of the judiciary result in which hamper the democratic structure of the constitution. Also he argued that it is the violation of article 14.

It was alleged by him that clause (4) of Article 329-A violated the basic structure of the Constitution and when 39^th Constitution Amendment was passed, some members of Parliament illegally detained after emergency was imposed which violate the provisions of detention laws.

Eventually, his main contention was that 39^th Constitution Amendment restrict the power of the judiciary and also which illegally infringed the provisions of basic structure of the Constitution.

Legal aspects involved:-                                          

                        As per the above stated arguments some legal laws involved as under:-

1.      Article 14 has violated in this case which states that everyone is equal before the law. Raj Narain’s right was infringed in this case.

2.      In the present case, Article 102 of the petitioner was infringed since it was alleged by the respondent that she has rehearsed malpractices to win the election.

3.      Article 122 of the Constitution also involved in this case since it was argued that judiciary has no jurisdiction over the matters of election, only legislature can make the provisions regarding the election. It totally restricts the Court to interfere in this matter.

4.      Article 262 contradict the above provision since according to above article Court cannot interfere but according to this article, Court can make provisions regarding water-disputes.

5.      39^th Constitution Amendment ( 10^th August, 1975 ) restricts the power of the judiciary over election matters but according to 329-A which is added under part XV after this amendment, states that judiciary cannot questioned regarding the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker of the Lok Sabha rather only authority can make provisions over this matter which is appointed by Parliament.

6.      Article 359 states that no person can move to the Court for enforcing their fundamentals rights during emergency. But Indira Gandhi move to the Court during proclamation of emergency due to internal disturbance.

7.      Representation of People’s Act make provisions regarding the elections, its disqualification of members, disputes between the parties etc.

Judgement:-

                  The case was heard before the five Judges of the Bench in which Article 329-A was declared null and void because the Court in its judgment, held that this article was against the basic structure of the Constitution and also it condemned the person to be unheard before the court which is violation of the maxim ‘Audi Alteram Partem’.

Next judgment was regarding the election of the appellant, Indira Nehru Gandhi. Since, it was alleged by the respondent that she has rehearsed malpractices to win the case then Court was overruling the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and held that appellant has not been found guilty since there was no any evidences was found which proves her that she is guilty. Latterly, Court ordered that Indira Gandhi can continue her work as Prime minister and declared that whatever allegations were made by Raj Narain against the appellant, it is totally null and void.

Other issue was raised that whether the Representation of People’s Act, 1974 and the Election Laws Act, 1975 are constitutionally valid or not then Court denied to look upon this matter by stating that it is not the matter of the Court to dealing with, rather Parliament has right to rule over it under Article 368. Referred to Article 122, Court states that Court will not interfere in the matters of Parliament because it has no right over it.

Significance of the case:-

                  This case plays a very significant role in the legal system. It restricted the power of the judiciary to rule over the matters related with elections and also Court stated that no one is above the Constitution even judiciary is also not supreme rather it is a guarantor of the Constitution which impose checks and balances over the Constitution. Also it was highlighted the principles of separation of powers and judicial review. Moreover, it protects the rights of the individuals under Article 14 which guaranteed to the citizens by Constitution of India which means that everyone is equal before the law.

Furthermore, this case was significant because due to own interest, Indira Gandhi declared state emergency on 25^th June, 1975 on the grounds of internal disturbance which threatened the National security. This was happened in the very first time, known as ‘Black Day’ in the Indian history.

Conclusion:-

                Hence, from the above discussion we can concluded as that again it was held that no one is supreme from the India Constitution. Judiciary is only acts as a watchdog upon Indian Constitution which ensure the rights of the individuals, acts according to rule of law, follow the principles of separation of power, judicial review and also ensures the protection of the law. Hence, we can say that Constitution plays a very key role to protects the rights of each and every citizen. Every individual may directly approach to the court whenever their fundamental rights has infringed.

• Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case summary
• 39th Constitutional Amendment 1975
• Article 329A unconstitutional
• Basic structure doctrine India
• Election malpractice Indira Gandhi
• Judicial review in India
• Representation of the People Act
• Emergency in India 1975
• Separation of powers in Indian Constitution
• Supreme Court judgments on elections
• Audi alteram partem
• Rule of law India
• Constitutional law landmark cases