1975 Landmark Judgement: Indira Gandhi’s Election Challenge and the Fall of Article 329A(4)

 

Indira Nehru Gandhi

Vs.

Shir Raj Narain & Anr.

(AIR 1975 SC 2299, 1976 2 SCR 347)

Landmark Case on Supremacy of Indian Constitution and Independency of Indian Judiciary.

Author- Saumya Mishra, First year B.A.LLB(Hons), S.S. Khanna Girls Degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj

ABSTRACT

This case is a very significance case when it comes to separation of power and democracy. This case was an appeal (civil) in Supreme Court by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This case involved the legal provisions such as Representative of Peoples (amendment) Act, 1974 and Election Laws (amendment) Act, 1975 and 39^th Amendment of the Constitution. There were three issues related to the case that were validity of Indira Gandhi`s election, both the above mentioned acts and the above mentioned amendment. SC held that parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution and removed Clause (4) of the Article 329A of the constitution.  

1.      PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

 

Case No.		:		Appeal (Civil) 887 of 1975
Jurisdiction	:		Supreme Court of India
Case Filed On		:		24th June, 1975
Case Decided On		:		7th November, 1975
Judges		:		Chief Justice A.N. Ray, Justice H.R.Khanna, Justice K.K. Mathew, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud.
Legal Provisions Involved		:		Representative of the People (amendment) Act, 1974. Election Laws (amendment) Act, 1975. Article 329 A of the Constitution.
Case Summary Prepared		:		Saumya

 

2.     BRIEF FACTS ABOUT THE CASE

In 1971 Lok Sabha election was held in which Indira Gandhi emerged victorious by securing 352 seats out of 518 seats. She fought elections from Rai Bareilly against Raj Narain. He was confident about his victory but lost by a huge margin. He filed case on 24^th august 1971 in Allahabad High Court accusing Indira Gandhi for using corrupt practices in election and also to nullify the election.Allahabad High Court held that Indira was guilty under section 123(7) of RPA and declared her election void. It also removed Indira from the post of Prime Minister and barred her from standing in election for next six years.Aggrieved by the decision, Indira appealed in Supreme Court. SC temporarily issued stay orders allowing her to attend the parliamentary proceedings but did not gave her voting rights. During the pendency of the court state emergency was issued and 39^thconstitutional amendment was introduced under Article 329 A of the constitution which said the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker could not be legally challenged in any Indian Court. This amendment barred the SC from jurisdiction on the ongoing case. The validity of the amendment was challenged.

3.     ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

Following Issues were raised in the case in Supreme Court:

1.       Whether the election of Indira Gandhi was valid?

2.      Whether the Representative of People`s Act (amendment) ,1974 and Election Laws (amendment) Act ,1975 is valid?

3.      Whether clause (4) of Article 329 A is unconstitutional?

 

4.     ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

 

Appellant

The Attorney General primarily contended that it was not in jurisdiction of the court and the case should be left with the legislature.

It was contended that in American Constitution the power to decide the cases related to election is given to the legislature.

It was contended the Judiciary cannot exercise power vested in the other organs of the Government.

It was argued that election is a political matter and if there is no statutory or constitutional provision related to them, judiciary cannot deal with cases related to it.

There was a reference of 39^th constitutional amendment in which article 329 A was added. Clause (1) of this article stated that no election of either House of Parliament or person who holds office of Prime Minister or Speaker of the House of People shall be questioned except before the authority appointed by the Parliament.

Clause (2) of this article states that decision taken by the authority or any body appointed by Parliament shall not be questioned in any court of law.

Clause (3) of this article stated that the election petition that was pending on a person on the matter of election shall abate after the appointment of the person as Prime Minister or the speaker of the House of People.

Clause (4) of this article stated that the law made by the Parliament related to election before the amendment will not be void and will be valid even after the commencement of the amendment.

It was stated that the appellant was nominated as a candidate of Rai Bareli constituency on 1^st February 1971 due to which the orders of appellant on 7^th January 1971 and 19^th January 1971 cannot sustain as appellant was not a nominated member at that time.

It was stated that due to emergency the decision of the Parliament to restrict the power of Judiciary will be treated as a special power as the country was facing internal and external danger and it was necessary at that time to hold the office of the Prime Minister as unconquerable.

As per the article 33 of the constitution the power of the parliament to modify the rights given by the constitution to the specific group is to ensure the proper discharge of duties and maintenance of disciple rather that violation of the right of equality.

 

RESPONDENT

It was contended that the Representation of People`s (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act,1975 and 39^th Constitutional Amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution and it was supported by the case of Keshwanand Bharati Sripagalavaru V. State of Kerala in which it was held that Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution.

It was contended that democracy was destroyed by restricting the power of judiciary on the matters related to election and the matter of judicial determination under Article 329 and Article 136 of the Constitution was taken away by the Judiciary.

It also contended that it was the violation of the Right to Equality as there was unreasonable classification between the person holding higher position and the person in lower position.

It was contended that the rule of law is basis of democracy and clause (4) of Article 329A limit the power of judicial review and also separate it by restricting the Judiciary from deciding the cases related to election.

In English Law the power to hear election related cases was with the Parliament but in 1870 it was given to the Judiciary due to political unrest.

It was contended that Article 368 does not give Parliament the power to do amendment which decide who win the election.

 

5.     LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED

Representation of people`s (amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Laws (amendment) Act, 1975.

It seemed that the 39^th Amendment harmed the separation of power, judicial review and principle of equality as when it was passed many members of Parliament were not present which benefited Congress. However, court held that Parliament has acted within its power and this matter is related to legislature hence judiciary cannot interfere in it.

Clause (4) of Article 329 A

 It was held that this clause violates the standard of free and fair election which is an integral part of the constitution and also necessary for democracy, it also took the power of judicial review from judiciary which is against the basic features of the Constitution.

 

6.     JUDGEMENT

It was ruled that clause (4) of Article 329A is illegal as it violates the basic features of the constitution. Holding free and fair election was an integral part of basic feature of the constitution. This Articles also violates the principle of Audi alterem partem which says that no one should be condemned without being heard, it created an unjustified distinction between the person holding office and other person elected to the Parliament which undermines Article 14.Judicial Review is the fundamental part of the Constitution which should not be taken away from Judiciary.

The court held that Parliament had the power to amend laws related to election except the limitation of parliament stated in Article 13 of the Constitution. It was held that despite the absence of certain parliamentarians the Parliament has acted within its power and the legislative changes in Representation of People`s (amendment) Act, 1974 and Election Laws (amendment) Act,1975 is valid.

 The court ruled that that Indira Gandhi can serve as the Prime Minister due to lack of substantial evidence of malpractice in election, it was also held that candidate’s personal expenses did not count under party`s election expenses. It was held that Yashpal Kapur was resigned from his office on 14^th January, 1971 and Indira Gandhi appointed him on 1^st February therefore he was not an official during his assistance to Indira Gandhi.

 

7.     IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE

This is a landmark case which had great significance and impact on the Indian law. It was 1^st time when election of Prime Minister was questioned. This case had a huge impact on the basis structure of the Constitution. This case questioned so many aspects of the Constitution such as basic structure, judicial review, separation of power, rule of law, free and fair election.

8.     CONCLUSION

This case is important because it made the Parliament aware that Democracy is an integral part of the constitution and judiciary has the right to make decision on the cases related to it. Even though the judgement was correct it had many flaws in it. It was clearly seen that 39^th amendment was passed to remove the ground on which Indira was guilty by Allahabad High Court which Supreme Court did not consider.

• Indira Gandhi election case 1975
• Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case summary
• Indira Gandhi Supreme Court judgement
• Article 329A clause 4 case
• 39th constitutional amendment case
• Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
• basic structure doctrine case law
• Indian judiciary independence case
• landmark constitutional cases India
• judicial review in India
• separation of powers case India
• free and fair elections Supreme Court
• Supreme Court judgement on Prime Minister election
• emergency period election case
• rule of law in India case laws
• 1975 election case against Indira Gandhi
• Supreme Court vs Parliament power
• Representation of People Act amendment case
• Keshavananda Bharati and Indira Gandhi case
• Raj Narain election petition judgement