The article is written by Jyotika Saroha. The present article provides a detailed overview of the landmark judgement in Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Shri Raj Narain (1975). It is a landmark case where many important aspects of the Indian Constitution have been touched upon by the Supreme Court in upholding the principles of equality, unity, and integrity of the nation. It elaborates on the facts, issues, and judgement of the court while also covering the laws and precedents applied in the said case and the analysis of the judgement.

Introduction

Prashant Bhushan, a renowned lawyer and activist, authored the non-fiction book ‘The Case That Shook India,’ which delves into the landmark case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Shri Raj Narain (1975). This case is a significant legal precedent in the history of independent India that resulted in the imposition of an emergency from 1975 to 1977. In this case, the election of the Prime Minister was in question. During this time, the Parliament tried to assert its dominance and acted outside its sphere by limiting the powers vested in the judiciary. The case is a landmark one as it touched on so many aspects of the Indian Constitution, including the basic structure doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), the separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary, the conduct of elections in a free and fair manner, and the concept of judicial review. It is also pertinent to note that during the hearing of this case, the emergency was in operation, the fundamental rights were suspended, and censorship was also imposed on the press, resulting in the non-reporting of the case. Moreover, this case had a great impact on the political structure of the country at that time, as there was an illegal detention of many members of Parliament without giving them the reasonable opportunity of having a fair trial.

Details of the case

• Name of the case: Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Shri Raj Narain & Anr
• Case Number: Appeal (Civil) 887 of 1975
• Equivalent Citation: AIR 1975 SC 2299, 1976 2 SCR 347
• Laws Discussed: Article 14, 31-B, 368, and 329-A of the Constitution of India, and Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Hon’ble Justices A.N. Ray (CJ), Justice H.R. Khanna, Justice K.K. Mathew, Justice M.H. Beg, and Justice Y.V. Chandrachud
• Parties to the case

1. Appellant: Indira Nehru Gandhi
2. Respondents: Shri Raj Narain

• Judgement date: 7th November, 1975

Facts of the case

During the 5th Lok Sabha General Elections in India, which took place in 1971, there were two contenders from the Rae Bareli constituency, namely Indira Nehru Gandhi (appellant herein) and Shri Raj Narain (respondent herein), with tough competition among them. After the elections were declared, Indira Nehru Gandhi won the election with 352 Lok Sabha seats out of 518. Her strongest contender did not approve of these results, as he was very confident about winning the election by a huge margin. 

Petition before the Allahabad High Court

He filed a petition before the High Court of Allahabad on 24th April, 1971, in order to raise his voice against the elections won by Indira Gandhi on the grounds of malpractice. Shri Raj Narain alleged that the appellant, Indira Nehru Gandhi, violated the model code of conduct of elections as per the provisions of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951. He further made allegations against Indira Nehru Gandhi for using government resources for the purpose of elections. He also contended that she gave money, liquor, and blankets in order to buy votes from the people by influencing them. 

Decision given by the Allahabad High Court

The case was put before Justice Jagmohan Lal of the High Court of Allahabad, and in his judgement, he declared Indira Gandhi to be guilty of the allegations made against her by Shri Raj Narain. She was found guilty of using the money and other government resources as per the provisions of Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951. The High Court, in its decision, barred her from contesting the elections of Prime Minister for a further period of six years. Thereafter, aggrieved with the decision of the Allahabad High Court, she (the appellant herein) moved to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Allahabad. At that point in time, the Supreme Court was on vacation; hence, the Court granted a stay on the decision of the High Court. 

Meanwhile, the then Indian President, Fakhrudeen Ali Ahmed, made a proclamation of emergency on the grounds of an internal disturbance. However, the people were aware of the real reason behind the declaration of emergency, and it was because of the decision given by the Allahabad High Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raj Narain (1975).

Challenging the validity of the 39th Constitutional Amendment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ordered both parties to the case to appear before the court on August 10, 1975, in the proceedings. The President passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which introduced a new provision, namely Article 329-A, in the Indian Constitution. Article 329-A provided that the election of the speaker and Prime Minister shall not be questioned in the court of law, and they could only be dealt with by the committee formed by the Parliament for that purpose, which resulted in a restriction on the power of the Supreme Court in dealing with cases regarding elections. Shri Raj Narain challenged the validity of the 39th Constitutional Amendment, arguing that it was unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Issues raised in the case

The following issues were raised in the case before the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the election of Indira Gandhi was valid?
2. Whether the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, are constitutionally valid?
3. Whether clause (4) of Article 329-A is unconstitutional?

Arguments of the parties

Appellant 

1. The learned attorney general primarily contended that it is not in the hands of courts to decide upon the election related dispute and that it must be left with the Legislature.
2. It was contended that in the American Constitution, the power to make decisions in election-related disputes rests with the legislature, and such complaints must be filed within the legislature only.
3. It was further stated that the judiciary cannot exercise the powers vested in the other organs of the government and has no say in them. It was argued that matters related to political questions are not to be dealt with by the judiciary.
4. The appellants argued that elections solely belong to the political branch of the government, and if there are no statutory or constitutional provisions regarding them, they are not to be dealt with by the judiciary.
5. The further contentions were made with reference to the 39th Constitutional Amendment, by which Article 329-A was added. It was stated that, as per clause (1) of Article 329-A, no election of either the House of Parliament or of the person who holds the office of Prime Minister or who holds the office of speaker in the House of People shall be questioned except before an authority is appointed by the Parliament. 
6. It was contended that, as per clause (2) of Article 329-A, decisions taken by authority or any body under such a provision shall not be questioned in the court of law.
7. The appellants submitted that, as per Article 329-A clause (3), the election petition that was pending against the person in respect of the election to either the House of Parliament or, in the case of the House of People, shall abate after such person is appointed as the Prime Minister or chosen for the office of the Speaker of the House of People.
8. It was claimed by the appellants that clause (4) of Article 329-A states that the law made by Parliament before the 39th Constitutional Amendment, 1975, which relates to election petitions or has been applied in relation to the elections, shall not be deemed to be void and will remain valid even after the commencement of the Amendment. 
9. The appellants further stated that the appellant was nominated as a candidate for the Rae Bareli constituency on 1 February, 1971, and hence the findings of the High Court of Allahabad that the speeches given by Yashpal Kapur, the agent of the appeal, as per the instructions or orders of Indira Gandhi on January 7, 1971, and January 19, 1971, cannot be sustained as the appellant was not a nominated candidate at that time. 
10. In addition to the above contentions, it was contended by the learned Attorney General that the country was going through a tough time when the emergency was declared. The decision of the constituent authority to restrict the power of the judiciary should be treated as a special power in the circumstances when the conditions were not usual and the country was surrounded by internal and external dangers. It was the requirement of the time to hold the office of the Prime Minister to be unconquerable. 
11. The appellants also contended that the exclusion of the power of judicial review is not a negation of equality under Article 14. As per Article 33 of the Indian Constitution, it deals with the power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by the Constitution in their application to specific groups to ensure the proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline, rather than upholding the principles of equality.
12. Hence, they submitted that the contention that the 39th Constitutional Amendment is constitutionally invalid does not hold any value because the legislature has acted in its sole capacity by introducing this Amendment and not by encroaching on the power of other organs of the government. Even in other countries, disputes related to elections lie solely within the jurisdiction of the legislature. Lastly, it can be stated that the 39th Constitutional Amendment is constitutionally valid. 

Respondent

1. The first contention of the respondent was with regard to the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, that these two laws damage the basic features of the Constitution, such as judicial review. The constitutional validity of the 39th Constitutional Amendment was challenged as it also destroys the basic structure of the Constitution. In order to support this contention, reliance was placed on the case of His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru vs. State of Kerala (1973), from which the doctrine of basic structure originated, and it was held that the Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution. 
2. The respondent contended that the democratic structure of the Constitution is destroyed by restricting the judiciary from making decisions on matters related to elections as valid or invalid. It is a matter of judicial determination as per Article 329 and Article 136 of the Constitution, which have been taken away from the judiciary.
3. It was further contended that it is a violation of the principles of equality as laid down in Article 14, and the said Amendment does not pass the test of reasonable classification as there is an unreasonable classification amongst the persons holding offices in higher positions and amongst other persons who are sitting in lower positions elected to the Parliament. 
4. In respect of Article 14, it was argued that the rule of law is a basis for democracy and judicial review, and clause (4) of Article 329-A makes Part IV of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, which deals with the administrative machinery for the conduct of elections, inapplicable to the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker of the House of People. Clause (4) of Article 329-A also limits the power of judicial review vested in the judiciary and the separation of the same by restricting it from dealing with matters related to elections. 
5. Under English law, the power to hear election-related matters was vested in Parliament; however, in 1870, due to political unrest, the power was delegated to the judiciary. 
6. It was contended that the main basis of free and fair elections is that no corrupt practices have been committed by the candidate himself or with his consent or prior knowledge either before the candidate is nominated for elections or after his nomination, which implies that the Amendment Act of 1975 destroys the concept of free and fair elections by not punishing the candidates who commit corrupt practices before they get nominated for the elections.
7. The main contention of the respondents was that the 39th Constitutional Amendment affects the basic framework of the Constitution by restricting the powers of the Court and detaining individuals without giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is beyond the amending power of Parliament given under Article 368. 
8. It is also important to note that the 39th Constitutional Amendment was passed in the absence of some members of Parliament who had been detained unlawfully after an emergency had been imposed. They were illegally prevented from influencing any opinions. The detention of persons is not an act vested within the House of Parliament and is the act of other agencies.
9. It was contended that Section 4 of the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which added clause (4) to Article 329-A, would mean that the Parliament, acting in its constituent capacity, may decide the case by applying its own mind, and it would restrict the judiciary from going into the merits of the case. 
10. Therefore, it was submitted that the 39th Amendment is irrational and holds no value; it not only destroys the basic features of the Constitution but also affects the rule of law and separation of power. It is also illegal, as, by way of its provisions, many political leaders were unlawfully detained under the detention laws.

Laws involved in Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Shri Raj Narain & Anr. (1975)

Constitution of India

The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of the country. It was adopted on November 26, 1949, and came into force on 26th January, 1950. It is the lengthiest written Constitution in the whole world. Some of the provisions of the Constitution involved in this case are as follows:

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 13 states that laws that are not consistent with fundamental rights are considered to be void. The clause (2) of this Article states that the state shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred under this part; any law made in contravention of this clause shall also be considered void.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 14 provides that all individuals are equal before the eyes of the law and shall be treated equally. It also states that individuals enjoy equal protection under the law. This means that in similar situations, individuals will be treated in the same manner. 

Article 31B of the Indian Constitution 

Article 31B provides that the Acts and regulations mentioned in the 9th Schedule shall not be deemed to be inconsistent on the ground that they take or abridge the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution. The Legislature can make amendments to the said Acts and regulations and repeal them.

Article 33 of the Indian Constitution 

This Article provides for the power of Parliament to modify or make changes in the rights conferred by Part III in their application to the members of the armed forces, who are charged with the maintenance of public order, persons who are employed in any bureau or any other organisation established by the state, or persons employed with respect to the telecommunications system that has been set up for the purposes of forces.

Article 79 of the Indian Constitution 

This Article deals with the Constitution of the Parliament, and it provides that there shall be a Parliament for the Union, which shall consist of the President and two houses, which are to be known as the Council of States and the House of People.

Article 85 of the Indian Constitution 

This Article deals with the sessions of Parliament in which the President shall, from time to time, summon each House of Parliament as per the time and place that he deems fit. However, there shall be a maximum gap of 6 months between the first and last sittings of Parliament. Clause (2) provides that the President may, from time to time, prorogue the houses, or he may dissolve the House of People (Lok Sabha).

Article 102 of the Indian Constitution 

This Article deals with the disqualifications for the membership of either House of Parliament. It states that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen and for being a member of either House of Parliament on the following grounds:

• If he holds any office under the Government of India or under any state government.
• If he is declared a person of unsound mind by the competent court.
• If he is an undischarged insolvent.
• If he is not a citizen of India and has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign country as per the provisions of the same.
• If he is disqualified under any law of Parliament.
• Lastly, if the person is disqualified as per the 10th schedule of the Constitution, which deals with the provisions as to disqualification on grounds of defection.

Article 105 of the Indian Constitution 

This Article deals with the powers and privileges of the House of Parliament and its members. It provided for these freedoms:

• There shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.
• The members are immune from any court proceedings in relation to anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament. 
• No person shall be liable with regard to the publication by any authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, vote, or proceeding.

Article 122 of the Indian Constitution 

This Article restricts the courts from inquiring into the proceedings of the Parliament. It states that the proceedings held in Parliament shall not be questioned in the court of law on the ground of any irregularity in the procedure. It further provides that no office or member of Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in relation to the powers vested in him by the Constitution.

Article 136 of the Indian Constitution 

This Article deals with the special leave petition that the Supreme Court may grant in its discretion to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any matter that has been passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. This provision is not applicable to the laws relating to the Armed Forces.

Article 262 of the Indian Constitution 

This Article deals with the adjudication of disputes relating to waters or inter-state rivers for which the Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of such disputes. The Parliament may, by law, provide that there shall be interference by the Supreme Court or any other court in dealing with cases of water disputes. 

39th Constitutional Amendment, 1975

The 39th Amendment to the Indian Constitution came into force on August 10, 1975, which is a significant amendment wherein the Indian judiciary was barred from making decisions with respect to the elections of the President, Prime Minister, Vice President, and Speaker of the House of People. The amendment was specifically passed as a result of the decision given by the High Court of Allahabad, wherein the election of Indira Nehru Gandhi as the Prime Minister to the House of People was held void after Shri Raj Narain objected to the election by way of filing a petition.

Article 329-A was introduced by way of this amendment, which is a crucial point of discussion in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Shri Raj Narain (1975). 

Article 329-A of the Indian Constitution 

Article 329-A was inserted as a new provision under Part XV of the Indian Constitution by way of this amendment. Clause (1) of this Article restricted the powers of the judiciary to question the election of the Prime Minister and of the Speaker of Lok Sabha unless an authority has been appointed by the Parliament in that case. Under clause (2), it is provided that no court shall make a challenge to the authority that has been appointed under clause (1) in accordance with the law. Clause (3) of Article 329-A states that, as per Article 329, the election petition that was pending against the person who has been appointed as the speaker of the House of People or the person who has been appointed as the Prime Minister shall abate.

Clause (4) of Article 329-A states that the law made by Parliament before the 39th Constitutional Amendment, 1975, which related to election petitions, shall not be deemed to be void and will remain valid even after the commencement of this amendment. 

Clause (5) states that the appeal or cross-appeal that has been pending against the order as passed in clause (4) before the Supreme Court shall be solved in accordance with the requirements laid down in clause (4).

Article 329 of the Indian Constitution 

This Article barred the jurisdiction of courts from dealing with questions pertaining to or the law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats made under Article 327 or Article 328. It further provides that no election to either House of Parliament or to either house of legislature shall be called into question except on an election petition presented to such authority. 

Article 359 of the Indian Constitution 

According to this Article, the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution shall be suspended in cases of proclamation of emergency. When the proclamation of emergency is in operation, the President may, by order, declare that no one shall move to the Court during that time for the enforcement of their fundamental rights; however, Articles 20 and 21 are excluded from this. 

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 368 provides that the Parliament, by exercising its constituent power, may add, vary, or repeal any provision of the Constitution as per the specified procedure in this Article. Clause (2) of this Article provides that the process of amendment in the Constitution may be started by introducing the bill for the said purpose in either house of Parliament. Once the bill is passed in each house by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that house who are present and voting, it shall be sent to the President for the purpose of receiving his assent. In the proviso, it is given that if such amendment seeks to amend provisions laid down in clauses (a)-(e), then the said amendment shall require the approval of the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states, and it is to be done before the bill has been sent to the President for the purpose of receiving his assent. Further, in clause (3), it has been given that Article 13 shall not apply to amendments made under this Article.

Representation of People’s Act, 1951

This Act was enacted prior to the first general elections by the Indian Provincial Parliament. The Act provides for provisions with regard to the election, including the actual conduct of elections, qualifications, and disqualifications of the members of both Houses of Parliament and State Legislature, i.e., the House of People (Lok Sabha) and Council of States (Rajya Sabha) of Parliament and State Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council of State Legislature. It also discusses the other important provisions of elections, such as the nomination of candidates, registration of political parties, general procedure at elections, disputes regarding elections, etc.

Section 100 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951

This section deals with the grounds for declaring an election void. It states that if the High Court is of the opinion that:

• A returned candidate was not qualified on the date of the election.
• Any corrupt practice has been committed by him.
• Any nomination has been improperly rejected, and
• The result of the candidate has been affected by improper acceptance, corrupt practices, improper rejection, and non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution.

However, if the High Court is satisfied that no corrupt practice was committed by the candidate or that the candidate took all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of such practices, then the High Court shall not declare the election of the candidate to be void.

Section 123 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951

This section provides a list of acts that shall be deemed to be corrupt practices. It includes the following:

• Bribery, which includes the gift, gratification, or any promise by a candidate or his election agent to any person with an object to induce him. 

In the explanation provided within this clause, it is mentioned that the term ‘gratification’ used herein not only includes pecuniary gratification but also includes all other forms of entertainment and employment rewards. However, it does not include the expenses incurred during the time of the elections. 

• Undue influence,
• Influencing the candidate to refrain from voting for any person on the basis of his religion, race, caste, community, or language,
• If any attempt is made to promote the feeling of enmity or hatred between the different classes of persons on the basis of their religion, race, caste, community, or language,
• Any propagation of the practice of Sati or the glorification of this practice by the candidate himself or by his agent,

In the explanation provided with this clause, the word “sati” used here shall have the same meaning as given in the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987.

• Hiring a vehicle or a vessel by the candidate for the purposes of free transportation of an elector to the polling station,
• Obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain any assistance from the gazetted officers, members of the armed forces of the Union, police forces, excise officers, judges and magistrates, revenue officers, or such other class of person as the government may authorise,
• Capturing the booth by a candidate or his agent.

In the explanation, it is given that the agent here would mean the election agent, a polling agent, or any other person who has been appointed to act as an agent for the purposes of electing that candidate. 

Precedents involved in Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Shri Raj Narain & Anr. (1975)

A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950)

This is a landmark case that revolves around the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, in which the government allowed the individuals to be detained without conducting their trial. The petitioner, A.K. Gopalan, contended that this law is unconstitutional and violates the principles of natural justice by depriving the citizens of a fair trial. It was contended that it was a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court stated that individuals can be detained if they are considered to be a threat to the national security of the country, and the Court upheld the validity of the said Act and also stated that there is no relation between Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

K. Anandan Nambiar vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Madras (1965)

In this case, members of the Madras Legislative Assembly were detained under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rule, 1962. They challenged the validity of said rules, stating that they are invalid on the grounds that a legislator cannot be detained in order to prevent him from exercising his constitutional rights when the chamber to which he belongs is in session. The Supreme Court held that the members could not claim a special status as compared to an ordinary citizen and are liable to be arrested or detained even when they are sitting in a session of the state legislature. 

In the following cases, namely, Jayantilal Shodhan vs. F.N. Rana (1963), Chandra Mohan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966), and Udai Ram Sharma vs. Union of India (1968), it was observed that the doctrine of separation of powers is not similarly applicable to India, as here it has a broad application unlike other countries like America and Australia wherein it is applied in a rigid manner; however, in India it is not applicable in a rigid manner. The election disputes were primarily dealt with by the courts under common law, whereas under Indian law, Parliament possesses all powers with respect to dealing with the election disputes and matters related to them. 

Kanta Kathuria vs. Manak Chand Surana (1969)

In this case, an advocate stood as a candidate for election to the State Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan, and he was elected. The said election was challenged on the ground that he held an office of profit as per the provisions of Article 191 of the Indian Constitution and, hence, he is liable to be disqualified. The High Court set aside his election. The appellant advocate presented an appeal before the Supreme Court, while the Rajasthan government passed an Act that retrospectively removed the disqualifications of the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not holding an office of profit, and the Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws that have retrospective operation subject to the provisions of the Constitution.

Ram Dayal vs. Brijraj Singh (1969)

In this case, the respondent, Briraj Singh, was elected to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The appellant, who was a voter in the said constituency, challenged his election on the ground that the nomination paper filed by the respondent was illegally rejected by the returning officer and that the respondent has committed corrupt practices. He had taken election expenditures from the Maharaja and Rajmata of Gwalior, which exceeded the limits as per the State Legislature. On account of the insufficiency of evidence and the absence of reliable proofs against the respondent that he has exceeded the limits of election expenditures, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 

Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)

This is a landmark case wherein the validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment, 1971, the 25th Constitutional Amendment, 1971, and the 29th Constitutional Amendment, 1972, were challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional as they violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner given under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The judgement was pronounced by a 13-judge bench with a majority of 7:6. The case is of utmost importance as it propounded the doctrine of basic structure. While looking into the scope of the powers of Parliament and whether it has the power to amend the Constitution, the Court held that the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution are not unlimited or unfettered, and they cannot amend the basic or fundamental structure of the Constitution. The case also overruled the judgement given in the case of I.C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (1967), wherein it was held that the Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution. The doctrine of basic structure implies that the Legislature cannot make changes in certain parts of the Constitution which destroys its basic structures, which include the constitutional supremacy, secularism, federal structure, judicial review, separation of powers, etc.

Judgement in the present case

The Supreme Court, in its judgement, held that Article 329-A, added by way of the 39th Constitutional Amendment, 1975, is unconstitutional and void. However, with respect to other issues, the Court gave the judgement given below.

Issue-wise judgement

Whether the election of Indira Gandhi was valid

The Supreme Court, in its judgement, held that the election of the appellant, Indira Nehru Gandhi, was valid. The Court allowed the appellant to continue to serve as the Prime Minister of India, as the Court did not find sufficient evidence against the alleged malpractices conducted by the appellant. Further, the Court stated that her personal expenses that had been incurred during the elections cannot be counted as the election expenses of the party, and the Court rejected the claim of Shri Raj Narain against Indira Nehru Gandhi that she had exceeded the limits of her expenses during the elections. While dealing with the allegation made against Yashpal Kapur, who was a government officer who resigned from his post on 13th January, 1971, to the President and ceased to be a government official whom Indira Gandhi appointed as her election agent, the Court stated that there is no clear evidence against him for supporting Indira Nehru Gandhi by giving speeches. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court of Allahabad barring the appellant from contesting elections for another six years. The Court allowed her to continue to serve as the Prime Minister of India by overruling the judgement of the Allahabad High Court.

Whether the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, are constitutionally valid

In the said issue, the court refused to look into it and stated that it is a matter between two houses of Parliament, and the validity of enactment depends upon the power of the legislature, subject to the exception laid down in Article 13, which talks about judicial review. The court upheld the power of Parliament given under Article 368 to make amendments with regard to the elections. The court referred to Article 122, which restricts it from inquiring into the proceedings of Parliament. The court stated that it is the power of Parliament and not of the courts to regulate matters pertaining to elections, such as the delimitation of constituencies, grounds of disqualification, election expenditures, etc. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Court stated that even if the members were absent during the discussion of these amendments, the Parliament acted within its constituent powers in making those legislations and hence, they are valid.

Whether Article 329-A clause (4) of the Constitution of India is valid

While dealing with the third issue, primarily the Court stressed the violation of principles of natural justice, i.e., ‘Audi Alteram Partem’, which implies that no one should be condemned unheard and everybody should be given a fair opportunity of being heard. The Apex Court, while determining the validity of the 39th Constitutional Amendment, 1975, stated that it has created an unreasonable difference between the ‘persons who hold office’ and ‘other persons who were elected to the Parliament’ and that it also violates the principles of equality laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court opined that the said classification made between the members of Parliament was unreasonable and hence, was not based on intelligible differentia. It was also stated by the Court that judicial review and rule of law are the basic principles of the Constitution, and they cannot be set aside. 

The Court referred to the landmark judgement of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), in which the basic structure doctrine was established. According to the doctrine of basic structure, the Parliament can amend or modify the Constitution, subject to one exception that is it cannot amend the fundamental or basic structure of the Constitution. It was stated that the power of Parliament to make amendments under Article 368 is not unfettered or unlimited, and it cannot undermine the basic structure. Through a series of judgements, the Court identified several elements of the basic structure that include the supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, judicial review, secular and federal features of the Constitution, etc. Therefore, with the above reasoning, the Court held that Article 329-A clause (4) is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights as enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution. 

Rationale behind this judgement

The court, while pronouncing the judgement, looked into various aspects that are given below:

• The Constitutional Amendment that was introduced by Parliament impacts the basic institutional pattern of the Constitution by depriving the judiciary of exercising its jurisdiction in order to determine the validity of an enactment, which ultimately violates the basic features of separation of power and independence of the judiciary. 
• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which deal with equality before the law and equality in opportunity, are the basic tenets of the Constitution and are laid down in the Preamble as well. It is the duty of Parliament to establish such equality. Though Articles 31A and 31B restrict the scope of judicial review, that does not mean that the legislature can act according to its whims and fancies. Whatever kind of classification it is, the classification made by the legislature should be made in the public interest. 
• The theory of basic structure is not definable, and the doctrine of pith and substance has to be taken into account in order to find whether the legislature is competent or not and to eliminate the illegal encroachment of the legislature. 
• With regard to the contention regarding the Amendment Act of 1974 and 1975 that they are subjected to the doctrine of basic structure, the Court stated that the said contention fails on two grounds: firstly, that the legislative measures do not come under the basic features, and secondly, the majority view in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) held that the amendment in question, i.e., the 29th Amendment, which added Article 31-B, was not challenged on the ground that it destroys or damages the basic structure. 
• With respect to the decision of the High Court that Indira Gandhi committed corrupt practices as per the provisions of Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, and that the government officers of Uttar Pradesh assisted her, especially the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and others. It is pertinent to mention that the duties that these officers performed were done in their official capacities and in pursuance of official directions. 

Analysis of the case

The case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975) is a significant precedent set by the Apex Court, which not only upholds the doctrine of basic structure again but also states that the powers of Parliament are not unfettered or unlimited and that they are subject to certain exceptions. The Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of the Constitution and laid down that the Constitution is above all and that the judiciary is the protector and guarantor of the Constitution. This case also sustained the two important principles of the Constitution, which are the separation of powers and judicial review. This case pertains to the conduct of elections, wherein the people of a country choose their representative with faith that he or she will work for the welfare of the people. The elections should be conducted in a free and fair manner so as to provide the citizens with an opportunity to elect the most deserving and honest candidate.

The Court also affirmed the principles of equality, wherein it stated that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and no one should be treated unequally. Everyone shall be governed by the same law. The sudden introduction of the 39th Constitutional Amendment, 1975, by the government amidst the declaration of emergency, which added Article 329-A, showed that the government acted in an arbitrary manner, and by holding it invalid and unconstitutional, the Court affirmed that the rule of law is supreme and not the arbitrary exercise of powers by the government.

It is also pertinent to note that, after the judgement was pronounced by the Allahabad High Court, Indira Gandhi went through a lot of criticism, due to which she decided to impose a state emergency on June 25, 1975, on the grounds of internal disturbance and threat to national security. This emergency led to the suspension of fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The opposition parties announced 25th June, 1975 as the ‘black day’ in the history of India, as many political leaders, journalists, and activists were also arrested. The period of emergency led to various political movements and events across the country, which led to agitation in Bihar and Gujarat. All of these events, along with the judgement pronounced by the Allahabad High Court for barring Indira Gandhi from contesting elections, created an unstable environment all over the country. It further led to various controversial issues, which included the removal of slum areas and forced sterilisation campaigns started by Indira Gandhi’s son, namely, Sanjay Gandhi, which also raised the issue of human rights violations. After the emergency was lifted in 1977, it also led to the end of the darkest chapters in the history of India after the independence period. 

Conclusion 

It can be concluded that time and again the judiciary has played a great role in upholding the supremacy of the Constitution and its important principles like equality before law, equal protection of law, separation of powers, rule of law, etc. The judiciary always acts as a watchdog against the arbitrary actions of the state government. The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine of separation of powers and held that Parliament cannot act alone and take all decisions that are not even in its sphere, and it should act within its scope of powers without interfering with the decision-making power that is vested in the judiciary.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the doctrine of separation of powers?

The doctrine was propounded by Montesquieu, who was a French judge. It refers to the division of powers among the different organs of the government, which are the legislative, executive, and judiciary. Under the Indian Constitution, Article 50 deals with the division of powers between the judiciary and the executive. The main objective of this doctrine is to prevent the abuse of power. 

What was the political impact of the case?

The period of emergency had a great impact on Indian politics, resulting in various political movements across the country. It created an unstable environment across the country, which included the agitation in Bihar and Gujarat, the removal of slum areas, and forced sterilisation campaigns started by Sanjay Gandhi, the son of Indira Gandhi, which also raised the issue of human rights violations.

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-history/explained-the-story-of-the-emergency-9421688/