Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Anr.

Name of The Case:  Indira Nehru Gandhi V. Shri Raj Narain And Anr
Equivalent Citation: 1975 AIR 865, AIR 1975 SC 2299
Case No.: Appeal (Civil) 887 Of 1975
Petitioner:  Indira Nehru Gandhi
Respondent: Shri Raj Narain & Anr.
Date of Judgement: 07/11/1975
Bench: Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha (HC) And Justice Mathews, Chief Justice Ray, Justice Beg, Justice Khanna And Justice Chandrachud.
Court: Allahabad High Court, Supreme Court

The case of Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain gave rise to a landmark judgement. Indira Gandhi after having been found guilty of corrupt practices for election by the High Court of Allahabad. Many amendments were later made to the Constitution which eventually had detached all the acts which she was charged guilty of. She was, however, later acquitted of her charges by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court. A brief background history, facts, issue, related provisions, related cases, and judgement of the case shall be dealt with in this article.

This case questioned so various essential features of the Constitution such the Basic structure doctrine, the power of jurisdiction of courts, the separation of three organs of the state that are: Legislative, executive and judiciary, functions of Legislature, right to free and fair elections, rule of law and judicial review and lastly, political justice[1]. This case also had a major impact in Indian politics.

Introduction

This is a case that revolves around the outcome of the elections that was held in India in 1971. In the year 1971, the general elections were held. However, it was alleged that certain malpractices were done by Indira Gandhi. Raj Narain brought before the High Court of Allahabad the case stating the infringement of the doctrine of basic structure of constitution. This also happens to be the first case where the Supreme Court quoted the landmark case of Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala[2] with regard to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Raj Narain had alleged that Indira Gandhi had made use of government services during the election by Shri. Yashpal Kapoor. He had further gone on to state that the appellant had made use of the government vehicles as well as make use of the help from several officials which falls within the ambit of corrupted practices according to the Representation of People Act, 1951[3]. There were also further disputes regarding the emergency being declared in the nation and also regarding the violation of the 39th Constitutional Amendment which goes against the very concept underlying the basic structural doctrine which was established in the case of Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala.

This was the first time that elections for the position of Prime Minister was set aside. It was also the first time that the Election Laws amended retrospectively so as to validate the nullified election of the Prime Minister. It was also the first time when an Amendment made to the Constitution was struck down by the application of doctrine of basic structure. This case also had later led to the imposition of Emergency in India due to internal disturbance from the year 1975 to 1977.[4]

Background

 The 5th Lok Sabha elections were held in the year 1971. Shri Raj Narain had contended against Indira Gandhi for the election for Constituency of Rae Bareilly in the 1971 Lok Sabha General Elections. Indira Gandhi and her party had won the election by a huge margin, securing a total of 352 seats out of 518 seats in the said elections.

Raj Narain, however had appealed to the Court in order to nullify the election due to the alleged rigging and malpractices that was considered to be used by Indira Gandhi for the purpose of her election campaigning. Later On, 24 April 1971, Raj Narain had challenged the Prime Minister’s election by filing a petition in High Court of Allahabad.

The petition had claimed that Indira Gandhi’s campaigning process caused infringed to election code under the Representation of the People Act of 1951. This was due to the fact that the campaign had the aid of a gazetted government official, the armed forces, and local police. It also alleged that she had used government vehicles, distributed liquor, and blankets amongst the voters to influence them and had also surpassed the limit for the expenses that was allowed for campaign.[5]

On 12 June 1975, The High Court of Allahabad, held that Indira Gandhi was guilty of exploiting government machinery by section-123(7) of the Representative of Peoples Act, 1951.  The court also held that Indira Gandhi cannot remain as the Prime Minister of India, and that she cannot stand for the elections for another six years. After the said decision Indira Gandhi, appealed this decision taken by the High court of Allahabad to the Supreme Court of India. At the time though, the Supreme Court was on a vacation and had granted a conditional stay on execution on the 24th of June 1975.

Subsequently, emergency was declared because of internal disturbances. During that intervening time, Indira Gandhi had passed the 39th constitutional amendment. This amendment had introduced Article 392A into the Constitution. The Article 392A had stated that the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker cannot be questioned in any court of law and that it can only be challenged before a committee formed by the Parliament itself. Hence it barred the Supreme Court from deciding Indira Gandhi’s case. As a Result of this there the constitutional validity of the 39th amendment was challenged.[6]

Facts

In the instant case, the appellant had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision taken by the Allahabad High Court which had invalidated the election of Indira Gandhi on the ground of malpractices mentioned above. During the interim period, the Parliament had passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment. This resulted in the addition and introduction of a new Article to the Constitution of India, namely Article 392. According to Article 392A, it states that the Prime Minister and the speaker cannot be questioned in any court of the law and it can be only challenged in a committee formed by the parliament itself.  

The Supreme Court heard the petition for an unconditional stay on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court. The matter was heard and decided on 25th June 1975. The Supreme Court did not grant the unconditional stay, validating the election of Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister. However, the Court also stated that Indira Gandhi shall not be allowed to participate in session of the house or have a right to vote with regard to any matters with regard to the house[7]. However, Supreme Court did declare the 39th Amendment made to the Constitution to be unconstitutional as it defies the doctrine of basic structure that was established in the case of Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala.

Subsequently, emergency was declared because of internal disturbances, wherein it was rather consequential to the case of Raj Narain v. Uttar Pradesh[8]. On the 10th August 1975, the 39th Constitutional Amendment, 1971. By this Article 329-A entered the Constitution which completely barred the Supreme Court to deal with cases revolving around the matters regarding elections of President, Prime Minister, Vice-President, and the Speaker of Lok Sabha[9]

Issues

There were three main issues that were raised in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain and Anr. They are:

  • Whether the Clause 4 of Article 329-A of the Constitution of India, Constitutionally valid
  • Whether the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 is constitutionally valid.
  • Whether the Indira Gandhi’s election was void.

 

Whether the Clause 4 of Article 329-A of the Constitution of India, Constitutionally valid.

The doctrine of basic structure was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala. The doctrine of basic structure states that the unlimited power vested with the Parliament with regard to amend the Constitution had just one restriction which is Parliament should not violate or disturb the basic structure of the constitution nor should it amends that would destruct the basic structure of the Constitution. In other words, the Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights without the violation of the basic features of the Constitution. The Supreme Court by way of illustration had declared the following as the basic features of the Constitution.

  • Supremacy of the Constitution
  • Secular Character of the Constitution
  • Unity and Integrity of the nation
  • Republican and Democratic form of Government
  • The democratic character of our polity
  • Sovereignty of India
  • Dignity of the individual secured by various freedoms and basic right in Part III of the Constitution
  • Rule of Law
  • Judicial Review
  • Free and fair election

The constitution empowers the Parliament to amend the constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal of any provision according to the procedure laid down under Article 368 which is different from the procedure for ordinary legislation[10].The Supreme Court had applied the doctrine of basic structure laid down in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.  

It was articulated that Clause (4) of Article 329-A required to be struck down as it violated the standard of free and fair elections which was a basic feature of the Constitution. It was observed that the only way to resolve any issues that would arise in an election would be through judicial review. However, article 329-A took away that right of the court. Free and fair elections are basic features of a democracy and hence if elections are won by way of malpractices, courts should interfere for the purpose of justice.

The respondent had argued that on based on the decision of Kesavananda Bharti (1973), the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution had only the right to lay down ‘general principles’ which governs the three organs of the state. Hence, regardless of whether such a determination is valid is a judicial right under Article 329 and 136, and thus such an amendment disrupts the democratic structure of the nation[11].

Whether the Representation of The People (Amendment) Act, 1974 And the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 Is Constitutionally Valid.

Numerous members of the Parliament were not present because they were arrested under preventive detention when the 39th constitutional amendment was passed. The amendment ruined the entire concept of judicial review and separation of powers which are a crucial part of the doctrine of basic structure. According to Article 368 the parliament is not empowered to make any decisions with regard disputes by means of constitutional amendments. The amendment had completely ripped off the concept of equality.

Raj Narain had stated that since various opposition leaders were under preventive detention because of which they were not able to vote in the parliamentary proceedings, the 39th amendment was passed should be struck down. The court found that the matter was between the two Houses of Parliament and the court cannot interfere and decide its constitutional validity. It would also be pertinent to note that the President had not sanctioned any of the detentions under the Articles 352 and 359.

The whole question of the constitutional validity of the statue is completely depended on the existence of the legislative powers and limitations which are laid down by Article 13 of the Constitution. The Parliament had however, acted within the powers conferred to them by the Constitution under Article 368 when election laws were framed. Besides that, the Parliament also had the power to control the limits on election expenses such as what can and cannot fall under the ambit of such expenses along. The Parliament also had the power to decide what comes under the term office of profit, what comes under corruption and the status of the members[12].  When there has been a legislative amendment with a retrospective effect, then it is accepted as a standard implementation.

Whether the Indira Gandhi’s Election Was Void.

The Supreme Court stated that “candidate” under Section 123(7) of The People’s Representative (Amendment) Act, 1975, was to be understood 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 Mr Yashpal Kapoor had given his resignation letter to the President on 13/01/1971, which was then recognised on 25/01/ 1971, with effect from 14/01/1971 by means of a notice published on 6/02/1971. Indira Gandhi had designated Yashpal Kapoor as her agent for elections on 1/02/1971. Yashpal Kapoor left his post as a government officer on 13/01/1971, hence the assistance that he had provided to Indira Gandhi after that day cannot considered as corrupt practice.

Raj Narain had alleged that Yashpal Kapoor had given various speeches between 7/01/1971 to 25/01/1971 in support of Indira Gandhi but the court did not find any proof to support the same. According to Section 83(1) (b) and 123(6) of The People’s Representative Act, 1951, Voluntary expenditure by friends, relations etc. and expenditure incurred by a candidate’s party without kind of request or authorisation by the candidate has not ever deemed to be expenditure by the candidate himself. The Court held that according to Section 77 of The People’s Representative Act, 1951, Expenditure incurred by a political party with regard to the election of the candidates of the party is not a part of the election expenses of the candidate. Similarly, participation in the programme of activity organised by a political party will not fall within the election expenses of the candidate of the party.

Related Provisions

The following legal provisions were applied in this case while passing the judgment:

  • Article 329(b) under The Constitution of India 1949.
  •  Section 123(7) of The Representation of The People Act, 1951.
  •  Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974.
  •  Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975.
  • Article 368 under The Constitution of India 1949.

Related Cases

The executive decisions by the judiciary were retracted by this time at various levels. There also existed a struggle between the two organs of the State, which was primarily a conflict on matters with regard to the guardianship and custodianship of the Constitution of India. Indira Gandhi however was hard to make a ‘committed judiciary’ of judges in the favour of the government[13].

Before the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain and Anr, there were three other judgments delivered previously by the Supreme Court which troubled Indira Gandhi. In the case of Golaknath v. State Of Punjab[14] (1967), the Supreme Court had held that the amending power of the Parliament does not allow the Parliament to prevail all express or implied limitations on such power and that it cannot amend Part III of the Constitution.

The doctrine of basic structure was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala. The doctrine of basic structure states that the unlimited power vested with the Parliament with regard to amend the Constitution had just one restriction which is Parliament should not violate or disturb the basic structure of the constitution nor should it amends that would destruct the basic structure of the Constitution. In other words, the Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights without the violation of the basic features of the Constitution

In the case of Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India[15],the Supreme Court struck down the amendment made to Article 368 and held the Parliament has only limited power to amend the Constitution. The limited power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution is a “basic feature” of the Constitution.

Judgement

The court decided on November 7th, 1975. It would be pertinent to note that this was the first case where the judgement made in the case of Kesavananda Bhartiwas applied by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has upheld the issues of the petitioner and had in turn declared the disputed Clause 4 of Article 329A of the Constitution as unconstitutional. The bench had also found the said amendment infringe of the principles of natural justice i.e. Audi Altrem Partem since. This amendment denies the right of fair hearing to the person who is challenging the election of the members mentioned under the amendment.

Democracy is a basic feature under the Indian Constitution. The Parliament is not vested with the power to pass a retrospective law that allows them to validate an invalid election. This act hence may be described as an act of tyrannical use of uncontrolled and unregulated power. This amendment confers such determining powers to the Parliament. However, a legislative body cannot find adjudicative facts like a judicial body therefore, in the opinion of bench the impugned amendment is nail in the coffin of democracy[16].

The Chief Justice Ray C.J. had stated that the said amendment had violated a basic feature of the Constitution i.e. Rule of Law. Justice Khanna had stated that clause (4) of Article 329A violates the principle of free and fair elections which is a crucial part of democracy and which in its turn is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution

Mathew J. had held that if by clause (4), any essential feature of the democratic republican structure of our polity as visualized by the Constitution has been damaged or destroyed, the clause would be ultra vires the Constitution. He opined that a democracy can only function properly when there is possibility of a contest of free & fair elections. The disputed amendment destroyed that possibility and thus violating the Basic feature of Constitution.

Chandrachud J. had found the said amendment to be infringing of the principle of Separation of Power as it transferred a judicial function into the hands of legislature. He was also certain that the said amendment also violated the Article 14 of the Constitution as it creates an unequal position for specific members against others. Hence, due to many reasons the court struck down the 39th (Amendment) Act, 1975 finding it unconstitutional as well as violating the Basic Structure of the Constitution.[17]

Concepts Highlighted

This case primarily deals with the following legal provisions

•Article 329(b) under The Constitution Of India 1949.

•Section 123(7) of The Representation Of The People Act, 1951.

• Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974.

• Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975.

•Article 368 under The Constitution Of India 1949.

This case is a landmark decision and highlight the concept of the Basic Structure doctrine as substantiated under the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

This case also highlights the  various essential features of the Constitution such the Basic structure doctrine, the power of jurisdiction of courts, the separation of three organs of the state that are: Legislative, executive and judiciary, functions of Legislature, right to free and fair elections, rule of law and judicial review and lastly, political justice.

References

Tyagi, S. (n.d.). Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case Analysis. Http://Www.Legalserviceindia.Com. Retrieved October 25, 2020, from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2879-indira-gandhi-vs-raj-narain-case-analysis.html

 Anand, A. (2020, May 15). CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INDIRA GANDHI V. RAJ NARAIN AIR 1975 SC 2299. Law Column. https://www.lawcolumn.in/critical-analysis-of-indira-gandhi-v-raj-narain-air-1975-sc-2299/

India, E. (2020, August 24). Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain. E-Justice India. http://www.ejusticeindia.com/indira-nehru-gandhi-vs-raj-narain/

Divyanshu Priyadarshi. (2012, September). Case Study: Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain And Anr. on 7 November 1975 (Thesis). https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=485064027065075072092078101022118107009048072043057026110093112069119015009104069073038010111048053030011026111088091123067068121075061013081114010077013122078122111069065049117091024078089121008006088016090076110107123009029077078094120097013009103073&EXT=pdf

Yadav, D. (2019, May). Project on: Critical analysis of Indira Gandhi Vs Raj Narain EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION-1 Of BBA/ LLB HONOURS Critical analysis of Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Index. Https://Www.Academia.Edu. https://www.academia.edu/41823640/Project_on_Critical_analysis_of_Indira_Gandhi_Vs_Raj_Narain_EFFECTIVE_COMMUNICATION_1_Of_BBA_LLB_HONOURS_Critical_analysis_of_Indira_Gandhi_vs_Raj_Narain_Index

Law Teacher. (2019, July 18). Administrative-Law. Https://Www.Lawteacher.Net. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/administrative-law.php

Saxena, S. (2019b, June 1). The Case That Led to Emergency: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975). IPleaders. https://blog.ipleaders.in/emergency-indira-gandhi-v-raj-narain/

Saxena, N. (2020, June 9). 45 years since the Emergency: How the electoral practices case against Indira Gandhi progressed in the courts. Bar and Bench – Indian Legal News. https://www.barandbench.com/columns/45-years-of-the-indira-gandhis-high-court-electoral-practices-judgment-the-emergency

Karthik, K., & Geethika, K. (n.d.). CASE COMMENTARY- INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI V. RAI NARAIN AND ANR. Https://Thelegalinsider.Com/. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from https://thelegalinsider.com/index.php/2020/09/27/case-commentary-indira-nehru-gandhi-v-raj-narain-another/


[1] Tyagi, S. (n.d.). Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case Analysis. Http://Www.Legalserviceindia.Com. Retrieved October 25, 2020, from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2879-indira-gandhi-vs-raj-narain-case-analysis.html

[2] 1973) 4 SCC 225: AIR 1973 SC 1461

[3] Anand, A. (2020, May 15). CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INDIRA GANDHI V. RAJ NARAIN AIR 1975 SC 2299. Law Column. https://www.lawcolumn.in/critical-analysis-of-indira-gandhi-v-raj-narain-air-1975-sc-2299/

[4] India, E. (2020, August 24). Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain. E-Justice India. http://www.ejusticeindia.com/indira-nehru-gandhi-vs-raj-narain/

[5] Divyanshu Priyadarshi. (2012, September). Case Study: Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain And Anr. on 7 November 1975 (Thesis). https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=485064027065075072092078101022118107009048072043057026110093112069119015009104069073038010111048053030011026111088091123067068121075061013081114010077013122078122111069065049117091024078089121008006088016090076110107123009029077078094120097013009103073&EXT=pdf

[6] Yadav, D. (2019, May). Project on: Critical analysis of Indira Gandhi Vs Raj Narain EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION-1 Of BBA/ LLB HONOURS Critical analysis of Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Index. Https://Www.Academia.Edu. https://www.academia.edu/41823640/Project_on_Critical_analysis_of_Indira_Gandhi_Vs_Raj_Narain_EFFECTIVE_COMMUNICATION_1_Of_BBA_LLB_HONOURS_Critical_analysis_of_Indira_Gandhi_vs_Raj_Narain_Index

[7] Law Teacher. (2019, July 18). Administrative-Law. Https://Www.Lawteacher.Net. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/administrative-law.php

[8] 1975 SCR (3) 333

[9] Tyagi, S. (n.d.). Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case Analysis. Http://Www.Legalserviceindia.Com. Retrieved October 25, 2020, from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2879-indira-gandhi-vs-raj-narain-case-analysis.html

[10] Saxena, S. (2019b, June 1). The Case That Led To Emergency: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975). IPleaders. https://blog.ipleaders.in/emergency-indira-gandhi-v-raj-narain/

[11] Ibid

[12] Saxena, S. (2019, June 1). The Case That Led To Emergency: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975). IPleaders. https://blog.ipleaders.in/emergency-indira-gandhi-v-raj-narain/

[13] Saxena, N. (2020, June 9). 45 years since the Emergency: How the electoral practices case against Indira Gandhi progressed in the courts. Bar and Bench – Indian Legal News. https://www.barandbench.com/columns/45-years-of-the-indira-gandhis-high-court-electoral-practices-judgment-the-emergency

[14] 1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762

[15] AIR 1980 SC 1789

[16] Karthik, K., & Geethika, K. (n.d.). CASE COMMENTARY- INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI V. RAI NARAIN AND ANR. Https://Thelegalinsider.Com/. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from https://thelegalinsider.com/index.php/2020/09/27/case-commentary-indira-nehru-gandhi-v-raj-narain-another/

[17] Ibid

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *