CASE ANALYSIS OF INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI V.
RAJ NARAI
Title of the Case: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Citation: 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333.
Court: Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court of India.
Bench: Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha (HC) and Justice Mathews,
Chief Justice Ray, Justice Beg, Justice Khanna and Justice
Chandrachud.
INTRODUCTION
In the history of Independent India, It was the first time when
elections of the President were set aside. It was also the first
time when the Kesavananda Bharti case was applied to struck
down the constitutional amendment. Indian legal system also
faced the situation where election laws were amended to
legitimize the nullified elections of the Prime Minister. This case
mainly deals with elections disputes involving the prime
minister and purpose of 39th Amendment of the constitution.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In 1971, 5TH Lok Sabha General Elections were held in India.
Raj Narain and Indira Gandhi were the two contenders with a
tough combat against each other for Rae Bareilly constituency.
When the Results were proclaimed, It was observed that Indira
Gandhi won the Elections by securing 352 seats out of 518 seats.
The Result was distasteful for the Raj Narain as he was very
optimistic about winning the Elections with a huge margin. A
Night before the Declaration of results, Raj Narain even held a
thrashing rally in the Constituency.
The Raj Narain, The Leader of Ram Manohar Lohias SSP
striked out to raise voice against the Indira Gandhi to nullify the
Elections by filing a petition before High Court of Allahabad on
24TH April,1971. He professed that Indira Gandhi performed
Election malpractices. He also put allegation on Indira Gandhi
that she has violated the election code which is mentioned in
Representation of People Act 1951. In his petition, He even
purported that Indira Gandhi has used government resources for
election purposes and distributed blanket and liquor to the
Voters for influencing them.
On 12th June 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of High Court of
Allahabad found Indira Gandhi guilty of misusing government
resources under sec 123(7) of Representation of people act,1951.
The High Court of Allahabad held that Indira Gandhi can not
hold the Office of Prime Minister, Furthe, she can not contest
elections for another six years. The Indira Gandhi filed an
appeal against the decision. The Supreme Court during that time
was on vacation so she was granted a conditional stay.
Thereafter, The President Fakhrudeen Ali Ahmed declared an
emergency due to internal disturbances but the real decision
took place because of the judgment of Raj Narain vs Uttar
Pradesh1.
On 11 August, 1975, The Supreme Court ordered both the
Parties to appear before the Court but on 10 Th August 1975, The
President passed the 39th constitutional amendment, which
introduced Article 392 A to The Constitution of India. Article
392 A States that, election of Speaker and Prime Minister can
not be questioned in any court of law, It can only be confronted
before a committee formed by Parliament itself. Thus, This put a
1
Raj Narain v. Uttar Pradesh (1975) A.I.R. 865
bar on Supreme Court for deciding Indira Gandhi case.
Therefore, The Constitutional authenticity of 39 th amendment
was challenged in Indira Gandhi V. Raj Narain2.
Issues Raised:
1. Whether or not, representation of the people (Amendment) act
1974 and the election laws (Amendment act, 1975, were
constitutionally valid?
2. Whether clause 4 of article 329A of the constitution of India
was constitutionally valid or not?
3. Whether the election of India Gandhi was void or not?
DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE
Kesavananda Bharti Case is a landmark case where the Honble
Supreme Court has laid down Doctrine of the Basic structure. It
held that “basic structure of the Constitution could not be
abrogated even by a constitutional amendment”.
2
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain A.I.R.( 1975) S.C. 2299
The Judgement listed some basic structures of the constitution
as:
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Unity and sovereignty of India
3. Democratic and republican form of government
4. Federal character of the Constitution
5. Secular character of the Constitution
6. Separation of power
7. Individual freedom
Article 368 of the Constitution has given the power to the
Parliament to amend the Constitution by the ways of variation,
repeal or addition of provision by procedure which is laid down
and which is different from the Ordinary legislation.
In this, The Honble Supreme Court applied the Doctrine of
Basic structure laid down in the Case Kesavananda Bharti Case 3.
The Supreme Court said that Article329 A Clause (4) need to be
struck down because It states that validity of election will not be
debated and the Dispute will not be governed by any election
law. It also abolishes the Privilege and remedy to test validity of
3
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala A.I.R.(.1973) S.C. 1461
elections. The Elections will be considered valid. So, This was
affecting the Basic structure of The Constitution.
Facts of the case
During 1971 general elections of India in 5th loksabha; Raj
Narain , the leader of Ram Manohar lohia’ SSP competed
against India Gandhi in the elections of Rae Bareilly held in
UP .
Indira Gandhi proved to be victorious and defeated Raj Narain
in the constituency of Rae Bareilly by a margin of about
1,12,300 votes and getting hands on 352 seats out of 518 seats in
the ongoing election .
But Raj Narain was extremely certain and assured that he is
going to win the election so, Raj Narain made up his mind to
appeal against Indira Gandhi election and accused her for
adopting corrupt practices during elections campaign and took
the case to the Allahabad high court 29th April, 1971.
Trail judge upheld the allegations on 2 grounds and declared the
elections as vitiated by corrupt practice. 2 grounds are
1.gandhi had taken the assistance of a Gazette officer of U.P
2. She also obtained of the Mr.yashpal kapoor, a gazette officer
of the government of India.
Raj Narain, the petitioner alleged that Indira Gandhi used the
government vehicles for her election campaign and also
distributed blankets and liquor among the voters and she also
exceeded the campaigning expenses limit of 35,000.
Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad high court
held that election of Indira Gandhi is non viable-void on the
grounds of corrupt privilege and disqualified from holding an
elective office for six years.
indira Gandhi was not satisfy with high court’s decision and
appealed to the Supreme Court. During the time Supreme Court
was on vacation and granted a conditional stay and after that
intervene emergency.
At the same time, Indira Gandhi passed the 39th constitutional
amendment act which introduced Article 392A to the
constitution of India. Article 392 A expressed that no court of
law can question the election of speaker and the prime minister
and it can only brought up by and challenged before a
committee formed by the Parliament itself.
The honorable Supreme Court laid down the basic structure
which stated that the parliament unlimited power to amendment
the constitution is subject to only one limitation i.e. it should not
violate or breach the basic structure of the constitution.
Was the election of Indira Gandhi valid?
The Supreme Court after observing the facts of this case referred
that the section 123(7) of the Peoples Representative
(Amendment) Act, 1975 has the term Candidate, as the person
who files the nomination paper. The Supreme Court held that on
1st Feb, 1971, the nomination was filed by Indira Gandhi. So,
before this date, if any help or assistance is taken from the
armed forces or govt. officials will not be considered as corrupt
practices.
The Supreme Court also asserted in facts of Yashpal Kapoor
where it was clear that on 13th Jan, 1971 resignation letter was
given by the President and it was acknowledged on 25 th Jan,
1971. The Yashpal Kapoor begin working under Indira Gandhi
from 1st Feb, 1971. So, the assistance provided by him to Indira
Gandhi was not a corrupt practice.
Raj Narain Also purported that Yashpal kapoor has given many
speeches from 7th Jan, 1971 to 25th Jan, 1971 to hold up Indira
Gandhi. There were no sufficient sources which could tell about
Yashpal Kapoors intention to validate Indira Gandhi. The Courst
also held by referring section 77 of the Peoples Reprsentative
(Amendment) Act, 1951 that the expenses which are used for
the elections doesn’t comes under the election expenses of the
candidate. Also, participating the functions of activities
organized by political party doesn’t comes under the election
expenses of the candidate.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, Indira Gandhi argued before the Supreme Court
that the said allegations put on by Raj Narain against her in the
Allahabad High Court is false in nature and there’s no credibility
to it. The petitioner also stated that Yashpal Kapoor had
provided his resignation letter to the President on 13th January
1971 which was acknowledged on 25th January 1971 with
impact from 14th January 1971 by the manner of a notice
published on 6th February 1971. Further, Indira Gandhi had
selected Yashpal Kapoor as her agent for elections on 1st
February 1971 and Yashpal Kapoor ceased to be a government
officer after 13th January 1971 so, the assistance provided to the
petitioner after that day was not a corrupt practice
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent, Raj Narain argued that the said amendment is
violative in nature with respect to the salient features of the
constitution. The respondent placed reliance on a 7 judge bench
decision in Kesavananda Bharti. The respondent relying upon
the 1973 decision contended that the Parliament under article
368 is only competent to lay down general principles governing
the organs of the state. The argument also involved that the
impugned amendments tend to take away the democratic
structure of the nation endangering the rule of law and
separation of power. The respondent also brought forward the
fact that many of the opposition leaders were under preventive
detention due to which they were unable to vote in the
Parliamentary proceedings or give their recommendations when
the 39th Amendment was passed and therefore, the act needs to
be struck down .
JUDGMENT
The court gave its judgment on seventh November, 1975 and
was the main case; where the milestone choice of Keshvananda
Bharti case was applied. The court maintained the dispute of
the respondent and announced provision (4) of Article 329-As
Illegal.
Mathew J said that Article 329-A (4) annihilated the
fundamental design of the constitution. He was of the view that
a ‘solid majority rule government’ can possibly work when there
is probability of free and reasonable decisions; and the reproved
revision obliterated that chance.
Chandrachud J. tracked down that the revision was violative of
the guideline of ‘division of forces‘ as it wilfully moved a
capacity under the control of the administrative which was
absolutely legal. He was likewise of the view that the alteration
is violative of Article 14 as it makes inconsistent places of
explicit individuals from the Parliament against others.
Beam C.J held that one more essential element was disregarded
by the said revision i.e., law and order and Justice Khanna was
of the assessment of infringement of standards of free and
reasonable races.
The seat likewise held that the change was violative of the
standards of regular equity i.e., Audi Alterum Partem which
signifies ‘paying attention to the opposite side’ ; as it was
denying the option to reasonable becoming aware of the
individuals who were testing the appointment of the individuals
referenced in the Amendment.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
This Case is a landmark case because the Supreme Court
reminded the Parliament that the Law will always uphold the
Constitution. The Decision reminded the Parliament that
constitution is above all and Judiciary is there to save democracy
from harmful actions of Parliament. The Court in this landmark
case sustained the principle of Separation of Powers which
shape check and balance between the Pillars so as to avoid
encroachment and violation. The Case upheld that Indira Gandhi
, just to save herself from Allahabad High Court decision, she
passed the 39th Amendment and imposed the Emergency.
However, Judiciary resolved this crisis by withdrawing the
Amendment passed and helding the Elections valid.
The Court in this case highlighted the Essence of Democracy i.e.
Free and Fair elections. The Supreme Court held that the
country where the Citizens cant elect their representatives
through free and fair election is not an essence of democracy.
The Court proved that Parliament is by law and law is not by
parliament. The Court however focused on parliament or Indira
Gandhis vicious amendment and made Rule of Law dominant.
According to the Facts found in this case, Prime Minister
misused her power when she was found guilty violating election
laws. In this situation she should have resigned with the left
dignity but she imposed emergency to save herself. However,
Judiciary handled the situation and pulled back the 39 th
Constitutional Amendment which is violative of basic structure.
The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 played an effective role which
made the Challenge of Amendments in court of law impossible
(However this Amendment was struck down in Minerva Mills 4).
The Parliament in its agony passed a law on Judiciary where the
Court lost the power to question and amendment of Constitution.
Consequences after Indira Gandhis equities
The Time when the parliament took situation in its control, the
severe losses were occurred by the judiciary. This made
parliament so enraged that it decided to make a law in which no
court will have the jurisdiction or interference to hold challenge
of constitutional amendment. Pursuing the above objective,
Parliament amended the constitution by enforcing 42 nd
constitutional amendment act, 1976, also known as Mini
constitution.
This amendment was made to uplift the two elements that are
Supremacy of Parliament and Criticism of Basic Structure.
The Counsellors of the amendment asserted that there is no
limitation whatsoever in the competence of parliament with
4
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors v. Union of India A.I.R.(1980) S.C. (1789)
respect to its amendment powers. All the arguments were based
on the landmark rulings of the Supreme Court in Golaknath 5 and
kesavananda case.
5
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. (1643), (1967) S.C.R. (2) 762
