Case Brief: Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain

CASE NAME	Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain
CITATION	(1975) 2 SCC 159
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	A.N. Ray (CJ), Justice H. R. Khanna, K. K. Mathew, M. H. Beg, Y. V. Chandrachud
PETITIONERS	Indira Nehru Gandhi
RESPONDENTS	Raj Narain & Anr.
DECIDED ON	Review Petition in Civil Appeals Nos. 887 and 909 of 1875, decided on December 19,1975

INTRODUCTION

India imposed a state of emergency from 1975 to 1977 as a result of the historic case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain. In this case, the court’s authority was called into question, demonstrating how Parliament expected the judiciary to submit to them. Throughout this case, Parliament attempted to assert its dominance, but the judiciary blocked its efforts. Numerous fundamental elements of the Constitution were called into question in this case, including its basic structure, the authority of courts to hear cases, the separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, the role of the legislature, the right to free and fair elections, the rule of law, judicial review, and political justice. The Supreme Court heard the case under emergency conditions, when press censorship was imposed and basic rights were prohibited. As a result, there was no opportunity for a public hearing or for the case to be reported. The case had a significant influence on Indian politics.

FACTS 

The allegations against the former prime minister, Indira Gandhi, about her alleged wrongdoing during the electoral process gave rise to the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case. Claims that India’s then-prime minister, Indira Gandhi, had engaged in unethical behaviour during the election process set the whole affair in motion. This legal case originated with the complaint. Indira Gandhi was a candidate in the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, having entered the Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareilly constituency. While Raj Narain, her opponent, was attempting to get entry onto the SSP on Ram Manohar Lohia’s ticket, she was standing in for the Congress party. With 352 out of 518 seats gained, Indira Gandhi was able to secure her reelection as prime minister.

But Raj Narain decided to contest her victory since he was not happy with the result. Raj Narain petitioned the Allahabad High Court, alleging that Indira Gandhi had broken the Representation of People’s Act, 1951’s election laws. He charged her with abusing public funds to obtain an unfair edge in the election. According to Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1971, the Allahabad High Court found her guilty of these charges and ruled that her election was invalid. As a result, Mrs. Gandhi was declared ineligible to serve as Prime Minister and barred from running for office for a period of six years by the High Court. The Congress party was given twenty days by the court to select a new prime minister to succeed Indira Gandhi.

The verdict of the High Court did not sit well with Indira Gandhi, therefore she decided to take it to the Supreme Court for review. In order to postpone the High Court’s ruling until after more hearings, the Supreme Court, which was then in recess, granted a stay order until the appeal process. Mrs Gandhi was restricted from taking part in discussions and voting in the Lok Sabha by this ruling, which was given by Justice Krishna Iyer, although she was still permitted to attend legislative sessions.

A National Emergency was declared by President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed due to domestic disturbances while the Supreme Court hearings were in progress. Article 329A, which declared that the elections of the Prime Minister and Speaker could not be lawfully contested in any Indian court, was added during this period by the 39th Constitutional Amendment. The constitutionality of this modification was later contested, but it essentially deprived the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over the Indira Gandhi case.

ISSUES

1. Is the fourth clause of Article 329A of the Indian Constitution enforceable?
2. Is there a constitutional basis for the 1974 Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act and the 1975 Election Laws (Amendment) Act?
3. Is Indira Gandhi’s election deemed invalid or legitimate?

ARGUMENTS

The petitioner’s primary point of contention was that the 39th Amendment unfairly stripped the judiciary of its jurisdiction over election petitions and altered the “basic structure of the Constitution.” They made the argument that the Legislature’s role is to enact laws and that it has the authority to do so. Nonetheless, the judiciary has the authority to determine whether a statute is constitutional. Equal protection under the law and equality before the law are guaranteed under Article 14[1].

When the President enacted such a statute, he unjustly elevated himself and other individuals above the law. As declared in the Fundamental Rights Case, the rule of law and judicial review are essential components of the constitution and cannot be changed. The amendment was approved when the majority of members of the house were unable to vote in support of or against it. Lastly, the ability to modify the Constitution to determine the outcome of an election is not granted to Parliament by Article 368. 

The petitioners argued that it would be impossible to determine whether or not the elections would be free and fair by using the majority ruling in the Kesavananda Bharti case as a precedent. According to them, there are several articles in our Constitution that demonstrate that, as a matter of policy, the judicial review may be suspended in situations where the legislature is left to handle election issues. Referring back to the historic case, they discussed how Kesavananda Bharti and Shankari Prasad addressed the definition of “amendment” rather than the scope of electoral conflicts. Finally, they contended that neither the rule of law nor the notions of equality are recognized by our Constitution outside of Article 14.

JUDGMENTS 

The court delivered its ruling on November 7, 1975, and this was the first instance to apply the historic Kesvananda Bharti case ruling. Claim (4) of Article 329-A was ruled invalid by the Supreme Court, which upheld the respondent’s argument.

According to Mathew J., Article 329-A(4) shattered the fundamental framework of the constitution. According to him, the potential of free and fair elections is a need for a “healthy democracy,” and the challenged amendment eliminated that opportunity. According to Chandrachud J., the amendment intentionally gave the legislative branch control over a solely judicial role, infringing on the concept of the “separation of powers.” Additionally, he believed that the amendment violated Article 14 since it places some members of the Parliament at a disadvantage relative to other members. 

This decision has established the fundamental tenet that the Parliament’s modifying authority, as granted by Article 368 of the Constitution, is restricted. The fundamental framework of the Constitution cannot be changed or undermined by a change made by Parliament. In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Court stressed that free and fair elections are a vital component of the fundamental framework of the Constitution. The Court further found that the incorporation of Article 329A, Clause (4) was in violation of this fundamental value.

Ray C.J. ruled that the aforementioned change undermined the rule of law, which is another fundamental component, and Justice Khanna believed that the modification breached the standards for free and fair elections. Additionally, the bench ruled that the amendment violated the natural justice principles of Audi Alterum Partem, or “listening to the other side,” because it denied those contesting the election of the members named in the amendment a fair hearing. Because it violated the fundamental principles of the Constitution and was unconstitutional, the 39th Amendment Act of 1975 was overturned for a number of reasons.

ANALYSIS

The judiciary showed courage in its determination to set the “greedy” Parliament in its proper constitutional place in the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case. It was demonstrated to the Parliament that they are not alone in a democracy and that the court is always there to protect the Constitution from the damaging actions of the Parliament. Nonetheless, the ruling had several flaws in terms of justice, equality, and moral conscience, even though it was correct in theory. It was fairly obvious that the revisions were made to remove every reason why the Allahabad High Court had ruled Mrs. Indira Gandhi guilty.

The Supreme Court, however, neglected to acknowledge the original motivation behind these changes. The Supreme Court ruled that it was a matter of Parliament and the courts could not have any role in it, obliging the Gandhi party, while many opposition leaders were in preventive arrest and so unable to vote against the amendment. The way the situation was handled when Indira Gandhi misused her authority to change the laws accusing her of corruption was thoughtless.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court knew full well that Indira Gandhi had altered the law to suit her political needs and had arbitrarily imposed a crisis in order to avoid being found guilty. After having to wait a long while, Raj Narain received unfavorable thoughts. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court did invalidate Article 329’s clause 4 because it violated the fundamental framework.