Indhira gandhi vs Raj narayan Land mark case in field of Indian Constitution

1. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI
VS.
RAJ NARAIN
Citation: 1975 AIR 1590 1975 SCC(2) 159
BENCH:A.N.RAY(CJ) and H.R.KHANNA & K.K.MATHEW & M.H. BEG & Y.V.
CHANDRACHUD
Facts:
1. General elections were held in India to the 5th lok sabha in 1971, wherein Indira Gandhi
campaigned heavily for herself and her party and steered the Congress to come out
victorious by securing 352 seats out of 518 seats in the said elections. Raj Narain, the
leader of Ram Manohar Lohia’s SSP stood against Indira Gandhi in the elections of Rae
Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh. Raj Narain was extremely confident of his victory in the
elections, he ventured to such an extreme as to take out a triumph rally before the
declaration of results.
2. Raj Narain was very disappointed when he lost the elections with a huge margin. Raj
Narain did not accept the defeat and decided to appeal to nullify the election, accusing
Indira Gandhi of adopting corrupt practices during her election campaigns. On
24th April, 1971, he challenged the Prime Minister’s election by filing a petition in the
Allahabad High Court, putting allegations on Indira Gandhi of violating the election code
enshrined in the Representation of the People Act of 1951 as her election campaigns
were assisted by many government officers which also included the armed forces and
local police. He also alleged that Indira Gandhi had used government vehicles for her
election campaigning, and had distributed liquor and blankets amongst the voters so as to
influence them and had also exceeded the campaign expenses limit which was Rs 35,000.
3. The Supreme Court while granting conditional stay ordered the parties to appear before it
on 11 August 1975 however on 10 August 1975 the President of emergency – stricken
India passed 39th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971 by inserting Article 329-A to
altogether bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court from entertaining the matter. This
amendment made the elections of President, Prime Minister, Vice-President and the
Speaker of Lok Sabha unjustifiable in the courts of law.

2. Issue
 Constitutional validity of 39th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1975
 The election of Indhira Gandhi was valid or not?
Constitutional validity of Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the
Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975
 The 39th constitutional amendment was passed when several members of the
Parliament were not present as they were arrested under preventive detention. The
amendment destroyed judicial review and separation of powers which are a part of
the basic structure. Article 368 does not empower the parliament to take decisions in
any dispute by making constitutional amendments. Article 324A (4) is said to be in
the domain of the judiciary and is not included under Article 368. The amendment
destroyed the notion of equality; there should be no difference between people
holding high offices and the people elected to the Parliament.
 Raj Narain claimed that many opposition leaders were under preventive detention due
to which they could not vote in the parliamentary proceedings or give their opinions
when the 39th amendment was passed therefore the act needs to be struck down. The
court found the matter to be related between both the Houses of Parliament and that
the court cannot interfere in the matter and decide its constitutional validity. It was
also noted that the President did not authorize any detention under Article 352 and
359 respectively.
 In the matters questioning constitutional validity the statue depends entirely on the
existence of the legislative powers and the limitation laid down by Article 13, there is
no other prohibition and the Parliament had acted within the powers of Article 368
when it framed the election laws. In addition to this, the Parliament has the powers to
restrict the limits on election expenses along with stating which expenses can fall
under the purview of the same and which cannot. It can likewise choose what is
meant by the office of profit, what comes under corruption and the status of the
members. If there has been a retrospective effect to the legislative amendment, it is
accepted as a normal exercise which is tough to implement but is inevitable. In such
cases, wherein the law has a retrospective effect and if the law was operational in the
past, there can be no discrimination or unfairness on this ground of being
retrospective in nature.
Validity of the election of Indira Gandhi

3.  The Supreme Court held that “candidate” in Section 123(7) of The People’s
Representative (Amendment) Act, 1975, was characterized as a person who files the
nomination papers. It was then held that Indira Gandhi filed for nomination on 1st
February 1971, therefore any help or assistance that she took from the government
officials and the armed forces before this date did not amount to a corrupt practice.
 The Court also held that Yashpal Kapoor had given his resignation letter to the
President on 13th January 1971, which was acknowledged on 25th January 1971,
with impact from 14th January 1971 by means of a notice published on 6th February
1971. Indira Gandhi had selected Yashpal Kapoor as her agent for elections on 1st
February 1971. Yashpal Kapoor ceased to be a government officer after 13th January
1971, so the assistance that he provided to Indira Gandhi after that day was not a
corrupt practice.
 Raj Narain alleged that Yashpal Kapoor had given a number of speeches amid 7th
January 1971 to 25th January 1971 to support Indira Gandhi, however, the court
found no proof to support that he gave those speeches with the endorsement of Indira
Gandhi. The Court held that as per Section 77 of the People’s Representative Act,
1951, Expenditure incurred by a political party for the purpose of the election of the
candidates of the party is not included in the election expenses of the candidate.
Similarly, participation in the programme of activity organized by a political party
will not be included in the election expenses of the candidate.
Petitioners Arguments
Shri Palkhivala, for the from the side of her, contended that an unconditional stay was
appropriate and essential because
a) It was Sanctioned by some precedent;
b) There were momentous consequences disastrous to the country if anything less than the
total suspension of the order under appeal were made;
c) The adverse holding of the High Court on two counts hardly exceeded, even on its face,
technical violations unworthy of being visited with an ad interim embargo on Parliament
Membership during the pendency of the appeal apart from being palpably perverse and
d) The nation was solidly behind the petitioner as Prime Minister.
Respondent’s Arguments

4. 1) The respondent argued that the said amendment is violative of basic features of
Constitution. The respondent relied on 7 judge bench decision in Kesavananda Bharti.
2) The respondent relying on above 1973 decision contended that the Parliament under
Article 368 is only competent to lay down general principles governing the organs of the
state.
3) Since the determination is valid or not is a judicial prerogative under Article 329 & 136
respectively, the impugned amendment tends to take away the democratic structure of the
nation.
4) The said amendment is illegal because during its passage in the house a number of
opposition M.P.s were maliciously detained under detention laws.
5) The 39th Amendment is irrational & doesn’t pass the classification test as to why
classification between members holding higher/lower post is necessary. This amendment
is violative of Article 14 of the constitution.
6) The said amendment not only destroys basic structure, it also endangers rule of law &
separation of power.
Judgement
The application before us seems to be only an explanation of the reasons for which learned
counsel for the election – petitioner did not advance more detailed arguments on finding of facts,
given by Justice Beg etc. The constitutional bench gave its decision on 7th November 1975. The
apex court upheld the contention of Raj Narain and declared the impugned clause 4 of Article
329A unconstitutional.
Mathew J. Article 329A(4) destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution viz. the resolution
of an election dispute by ascertaining the adjudicative facts and applying the relevant laws. He
was of the opinion- “a healthy democracy can only function when there is the possibility of free
and fair elections, The impugned amendment destroyed that possibility and therefore violated the
basic structure of the Constitution”.
Chandrachud J. found that “The 39th amendment is violative of the principle of separation of
power as it intently transferred a purely judicial function into the hands of the legislature.
Further, he was certain that the said amendment is also violative of Article 14 as it created
inequality for certain members against others”.
Ray C.J. found another basic feature violated by the said amendment i.e. rule of law whereas
Justice Khanna found that “The violation of norms of free and fair elections. The bench also
found the said amendment violated the principles of natural justice i.e. audi altrem partem since
it denies the right of fair hearing to the one who is challenging the election of the members
mentioned under the amendment. Democracy is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution.

5. Parliament does not have the power to pass a retrospective law validating an invalid election.
This exercise is nothing but an example of despotic use of unrestrained and unfettered power”.
Therefore, due to various reasons, the court struck down the 39th (Amendment) Act, 1975 as it
was unconstitutional and violated the basic structure of the Constitution. And the Supreme Court
set aside Allahabad High Court’s judgment, it freed Indira Gandhi from all the corruption
charges and acquitted her, thereby making her election valid.
Review Petition
For review of judgement/or for clarification/or expunging of the observations from the
judgement, a review petition is filed under order 47 of the Supreme Court rule which indicates
the inherent power of the court.
Decision – Dismissed
Critical Analysis
 Indira gandhi took an unconditional stay order from Justice jag mohan lal sinha and then
appealed to the supreme court meanwhile very artfully she imposed emergency on the
nation ,also got many of her opponent leader arrested under preventive detention. if she
was not a politician, then she can never manipulate the things to this extent.
 According to me Indira gandhi had committed an offence but she used her power to
amend the laws that charged of being guilty and supreme court all the while ,when raj
narain pleaded for justice, wasn’t played his role well.
 It was evident that the three amendments were made to expel all grounds on which Indira
Gandhi was found guilty in the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court in its
judgment held that Amendment Acts 1974 and 1975, were intrinsically real as they were
administrative standards and the parliament had forced to update them, yet the Supreme
Court failed to notice that these amendments were made for the sole motive of removing
the charges against Indira Gandhi. Likewise, there were no debates on these amendments
because when these amendments were made, many opposition leaders were under
preventive detention due to which they were not able to vote against it.
 The Supreme Court was ignorant on its part to say that it was the matter of the Parliament
and the Supreme Court couldn’t deal with such issue. It is the duty of the Supreme Court

6. is to safeguard the constitution, it is considered as the watchdog of the constitution, and
here the constitution was being tampered in an unlawful manner but the Supreme Court
didn’t deal with the matter saying it was out of its jurisdiction which was a sign of
political influence.
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court was well aware of the fact that Indira Gandhi had made the
amendments to satisfy her political exigencies and had unconventionally imposed
emergency to save herself from being proved guilty. Raj Narain had to wait for years and
what he got was unwanted reasoning. Yet, the Supreme Court upheld the constitution in
some way as it struck down clause 4 and 5 of Article 329 being violative of the basic
structure.
Conclusion
The decision in this must be honored as it totally reminded the greedy parliament its place in
the constitution it was again confirmed in the Indian history that Judiciary is there to uphold
the Constitution and save Democracy. The court in this case upheld the principle of
Separation of Powers which builds checks and balances in the democracy to check that there
is no sort of encroachment and overstepping. The Indira Gandhi Govt. was of the view that
amidst Emergency the judiciary will also kneel down and abandon its duty to uphold
Constitution. However, the Judiciary resolved the crisis and struck down the draconian 39th
amendment passed to validate an invalid election.
The court proved that Parliament is by law and it cannot take law in its own hands.
Parliament’s recent course to establish its supremacy was ruined by the Judiciary. The court
upheld the essence of democracy i.e. Free & Fair election. Indira Gandhi’s malicious
attempts to put her Govt.’s legislative power above the Constitution went into drain and the
Fundamental Rights Case decision once again proved to be accurate and precise to its core.