Results of plagiarism analysis from 2021-02-24 19:20 UTC

21.8% case analysis

Date: 2021-02-24 19:18 UTC

 All sources 6  Internet sources 6

 lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-indira-gandhi-vs-raj-narain-and-anr/18868
[0]
15.6% 19 matches

 www.shedlegal.com/2020/07/01/indira-gandhi-v-s-raj-narain-anr/
[1]
9.8% 13 matches

 www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/constitutional-amendments-struck-down-on-basic-structure-doctrine-152020
[2]
3.0% 5 matches

 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala
[3]
2.0% 4 matches

 theprint.in/india/kesavananda-bharati-seer-behind-1973-sc-judgment-on-basic-structure-of-constitution-dies/496907/
[4]
1.0% 3 matches

 lawcutor.com/2020/08/02/indira-nehru-gandhi-v-raj-narain-and-anr-air-1975-sc-2299/
[5]
1.3% 3 matches

3 pages, 1786 words

PlagLevel: 21.8% selected / 22.0% overall

28 matches from 6 sources, of which 6 are online sources.

Settings

Data policy: Compare with web sources, Check against my documents

Sensitivity: Medium

Bibliography: Consider text

Citation detection: Reduce PlagLevel

Whitelist: --
 The case is based on electoral malpractices in the 5th Lok Sabha Election in which
Indira Gandhi and her Party Congress had emerged as the winner that too with a
sweeping majority by securing 352 seats out of the Total 518 in the said elections.
where Raj Narain, Leader of the Ram Manohar Lohia's SSP (Samyukta Socialist Party)
accused the then Prime Minister of India for malpractices in the constituency of
Rai Bareilly in which Indira Gandhi and Raj Narain were contesting for Lok Sabha in
1971. Raj Narain contended extravagantly and was so confidence in his win that his
party started celebrating even before the results had come out. This sense of
confidence had turned into a shock as to how Indira Gandhi was declared the winner
and hence re-elected for the constituency of Rai Bareilly that too with a sweeping
majority.
After the results on 24th April, 1971 Raj Narain moved to Allahabad High Court
challenging the validity and means by which Mrs. Gandhi had won the elections.
[0]
His accusations to the Hon'ble Allahabad High court were as follows
Bribery, Usage of government machinery and utilization of state resources.
[0]
Specifically, even about how Gandhi used government employees for her campaigning.
[0]
He even accused Indira Gandhi of procuring assistance of armed forces for arranging
[0]
her flights by Air Force. Her election agent and others distributed clothes and
[0]
liquors, they also appealed to religious symbols of cow and calf. They even used
[0]
government vehicles in order to help voters to get to their polling stations. They
exceeded the ‘acceptable budget' in order to contest elections.
[0]
Raj Narain even called the state government of Uttar Pradesh to present the ‘Blue
Book' in order to understand the security guidelines for the protection of the
Prime Minister while travelling. Responding to the appeal of Raj Narain to present
the blue book before the Hon'ble Court, The UP government claimed ‘non-disclosure'
[0]
under Sec.123 of Evidence Act.
[0]
The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad ruled in the Favour of Raj Narain as the
prohibition on ‘Blue Book' disclosure argued by the Uttar Pradesh government was
disregarded as Disclosures could only be prohibited if they were against public
[0]
interest. The High Court Validated all the accusations charged on the then Acting
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and charged Madam Prime minister guilty of electoral
[0]
malpractices under Sec. 123(7) of Representative of People's Act.
[0]
Discontented by the high court ruling, Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court, as the
Supreme Court being on conditional stay on the matter on 24th June 1975, Indira
Gandhi was allowed to remain the Prime Minister but was not allowed to vote in the
parliament, while granting the stay, Supreme court ordered the parties to appear
before it on 11th August 1975
Interestingly a sudden emergency was declared in the country by the then President
Fakrudeen Ali Ahmad on 10th August 1975 stating the reason ‘internal disturbances'
in the country but it was clearly evident at the time that the real reason for the
sudden imposition of emergency on the whole country was the ruling given out by the
[0]
Allahabad high court.
On the same date as declaration of the emergency the president of the awestruck
country passed the 39th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971 inserting Article 329-
A by the virtue of which the courts were barred from trying the election disputes
of President, Prime Minister, Vice-President and Speaker of the Lok Sabha, rather a
committee formed by the very parliament led by the people mentioned above will
appoint the committee to look into the matter.
[0]
This Amendment Act also put three Acts in the Ninth Schedule-
[0]
1) Representation of People Amendment Act, 43 of 1951.
2) Representation of People Amendment Act, 58 of 1974.
[0]
3) Election Laws Amendment Act.
[0]
Raj Narain challenged the constitutional validity of the 39th Amendment and the two
abovementioned acts on the basis of the ‘doctrine of basic structure' in the
Keshavananda bharti case decided in 1973.
[3]

Issue Involved
The Doctrine of basic structure contended by Raj Narain was that Parliament has
unlimited power to amend the constitution until and unless the basic structure of
 the constitution is not changed or altered. This Doctrine was laid down in
Keshvananda Bharti case.
[4]
Article 368 gives Parliament the power to make formal amendments and empowers
Parliament to amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal of any
provision according to the procedure laid down therein, which is different from the
procedure for ordinary legislation.
[5]
It was said that Clause (4) of Article 329-A needs to be struck down as it
eliminates the concept of free and fair election which is an integral part of the
Basic Structure of the Constitution. This article snatches away that very right of
the constituents of free and fair election as this is an indispensable part of the
Democracy that is set in place by the constitution of India and it is just as
important to hold free and fair elections as it is to get the judicial review in
case of any allegations or any doubt of malice or unfair practices practiced by any
of the candidates contesting, so judiciary will intervene and ensure that justice
is served to the voters and to other candidates.
When the 39th Amendment Act was being passed by Congress led by Indira Gandhi in
the Parliament most of the opposition Parliament was absent and were kept in
preventive detention in lieu of the emergency. This amendment dismantled separation
of powers of the legislative and the judiciary and snatched away the power of
judicial review from the people contesting for the high office posts like the PM,
President etc. And was violative of the notion of Equality as it was proposing to
keep the high office posts of the country beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, there isn't supposed to be a difference between the treatment of the
election for high office or a member of the parliament, in the eyes of law all the
candidates and offices must be equal and well within the purview of the Judicial
System of the country.
And since most of the opposition MPs were in preventive detention, nor they could
vote for the bill nor express their opinions on how the amendment blatantly favored
the acting PM and the congress party and put the candidature of the PM, President,
Vice- President, Speaker of Lok Sabha beyond the reach of the judiciary.

Judgement
The Constitutional bench tried the case and passed out the judgment on 7th November
[2]
,1975. The apex court of the country upheld the Respondent's contention and
declared clause-4 of the Article 329 as unconstitutional and violative of the basic
structure of the constitution.
[2]
This was the first case in which the landmark decision of Keshavananda Bharti or
the Doctrine of Basic Structure was used.
[1]
According to Mathew J. Article 329A (4) was absolutely violative of the basic
structure of the constitution meaning the resolution of an election dispute by
ascertaining the judge relevant facts and taking into account the relevant laws He
believed that a competent country which has the rule of the people can only
function when all the elections are free and fair and this amendment took away this
right of the constituents of the democracy and hence violated the basic structure
of the constitution of this democratic country
As believed by Chandrachud J. the 39th Amendment goes against the principle of
Separation of powers and transfers a function that is purely judicial to the hands
of the greedy and power-hungry Parliament (Legislature), and further it went
against Article 14 as it clearly made a distinction between certain members of the
Parliament and hence created inequality. As pointed out by Ray C.J. another rule
violated by this amendment was the rule of law. Justice Khanna on the other hand
[1] [1]
found this as “The Violation of free and fair elections”. This amendment went
against the rule of natural justice and denies the right of a hearing altogether to
whosoever challenges the elections and it was also held that Parliament lacks the
power to pass a retrospective law that validates an election that was previously
rendered invalid.
[1]
Hence for the Variety of reason stated by the Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court
of India the 39th Amendment Act of 1975 which inserted Article 329A (4) in the
constitution was declared unconstitutional and void. This was the very first time a
legislated amendment was struck down by the judicial system of the country, the
Supreme court also set aside Allahabad High Court's judgement and acquitted Indira
Gandhi of all the charges of corruption, using government machinery for elections
etc. Therefore, making the election valid.

Analysis of the Case

The case of Indira Gandhi Vs Raj Narain was a case so important to the basic
structure and the idea of India being a democracy with free and fair elections
where every election is open to judicial review. The decision passed out by the
Supreme court was a brave one taken by the judiciary to put the power-hungry
Parliament in its place in the constitution and maintained the separation of powers
and also retained the right of the candidates to approach the judiciary in case of
any election disputes even if it invalidates the election of the Prime Minister.
The moves made by Mrs. Gandhi were clearly despotic and monarchial as after
obtaining the conditional stay from the supreme court suddenly the emergency was
declared after which all the opposition leaders and MPs were taken in preventive
detention in the name of ‘national security' and the unconstitutional amendments
were passed which were clearly a way to expel all the laws and Statutory provisions
for which the election of Indira Gandhi could be declared invalid. This was a clear
abuse of power from the PMO and a power grab to remain in elected and showed the
importance of maintaining the constitutional structure and not letting any of the
organs of the government to over-reach for power.

Conclusion
The Supreme court made it clear to the country that the Parliament is by law and
[0]
law is not by the Parliament and upheld the indispensable part of a democracy I.e.,
Free and fair elections and did not let the parliament succeed in its attempt to
[0]
put itself above the Constitution. The main aim of the amendment was to remove the
grounds on which Indira Gandhi's election could be declared invalid and reverse the
judgment of the high court but the Supreme court proved that Parliament cannot take
law in its hands and blatantly Favour the sitting PM or any other individual for
that matter and that Law is above all.

Project By-
Toyesh Bhardwaj BBA.LLB
Enrollment Number: 04416503520
USLLS 2020-25, GGSIPU