Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain

Case Name: Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain

Citation: (1975) 2 SCC 159

Date of Judgment: 7th November 1975

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Type: Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975

Petitioner: Indira Nehru Gandhi

Respondent: Raj Narain & anr.

Bench: A.N. Ray (CJ), H. R. Khanna, K. K. Mathew, M. H. Beg, Y. V. Chandrachud

Referred Articles: Article 14, 31-B, 368, 329(A) of the Constitution of India

Referred Statute: Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act

Facts of Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain

The Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case stemmed from accusations against the former Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, regarding misconduct during the election process. 

The whole situation began with allegations against Indira Gandhi, who was then the Prime Minister of India, for engaging in unfair practices during the electoral process. The complaint was the starting point for this legal case.

In the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, Indira Gandhi ran as a candidate in the Rae Bareilly constituency of Uttar Pradesh. She was representing the Congress party, while her opponent, Raj Narain, was running from Ram Manohar Lohia’s SSP ticket. Indira Gandhi won the election with 352 out of 518 seats, securing her re-election as Prime Minister. However, Raj Narain was dissatisfied with the outcome and decided to challenge her victory.

Raj Narain filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court, claiming that Indira Gandhi had violated election rules outlined in the Representation of People’s Act, 1951. He accused her of misusing government resources to gain an unfair advantage during the campaign. The Allahabad High Court found her guilty of these allegations under Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1971, and declared her election void. Consequently, the High Court ruled that Mrs. Gandhi could not hold the position of Prime Minister and was disqualified from contesting elections for six years. The court granted the Congress party twenty days to appoint a new Prime Minister to replace Indira Gandhi.

Indira Gandhi was not satisfied with the High Court’s decision and chose to appeal it in the Supreme Court. During the appeal process, the Supreme Court, which was in recess at the time, issued a stay order, temporarily preventing the implementation of the High Court’s decision until further hearings took place. This order, issued by Justice Krishna Iyer, allowed Mrs. Gandhi to attend parliamentary sessions but prohibited her from participating in debates and voting in the Lok Sabha.

While the Supreme Court proceedings were ongoing, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declared a National Emergency on the grounds of internal disturbance. During this time, the 39th Constitutional Amendment introduced Article 329A, which stated that the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker could not be legally challenged in any Indian court. This amendment effectively stripped the Supreme Court of its authority over the Indira Gandhi case, and its validity was later challenged.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain were:

• Whether Article 329A clause (4) of the Constitution of India is valid?
• Whether Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974 and Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 are constitutionally valid?
• Whether Indira Gandhi’s election is valid or void?

Arguments by Petitioner

The primary argument put forth by the petitioner in Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain centred on the 39th amendment, which was seen as altering the fundamental structure of the Constitution and, more importantly, stripping the courts of their authority in matters related to election petitions. This was viewed as an injustice to the judiciary. The petitioner argued that while the legislature’s role is to create and pass laws, the power to determine the constitutionality of those laws rests with the judiciary.

Article 14(1) of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The petitioner contended that when the President passed such a law, it placed him and others above the law, which was not justified. The principles of the rule of law and judicial review are integral to the Constitution and should not be altered, as established in previous cases involving fundamental rights. Article 14 is based on a fundamental public policy recognized by all states. Eliminating judicial review does not promote equality.

The petitioner further argued in Indira Gandhi versus Raj Narain that the Amendment was passed when there wasn’t a clear majority of MPs in the house, and some members were unable to vote in favour or against it. Additionally, Article 368 does not grant Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution to determine election outcomes.

Furthermore, the petitioner in Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain noted that various articles in our Constitution allow for the exclusion of judicial review in appropriate cases as a matter of policy. They pointed out that cases like Kesavananda Bharti and Shankari Prasad did not address electoral matters; instead, they focused on the meaning of word amendments. Therefore, the constituent power of the Constitution should be viewed as a whole and not selectively applied.

Arguments by Respondent

The 39th Amendment Act has a significant impact on the fundamental structure and framework of our Constitution. It also diminishes the authority of the Courts. As per them, the country’s system has always maintained a separation of powers among the three branches of government. Therefore, it’s unfair to the judiciary if their power to interpret and decide is nullified or taken away.

The primary role of the government is to create laws, but it doesn’t have the authority to determine the constitutionality of those laws. If the judiciary finds that a law is unconstitutional, it should be invalidated.

Article 14 of Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. By passing such a law, the President and others have placed themselves above the law, which is not justified.

The principles of the rule of law and judicial review are fundamental aspects of our Constitution. They should not be undermined or altered, as established in previous cases concerning fundamental rights.

Article 368 does not give Parliament the power to amend the Constitution in a way that decides who wins or loses an election.

Judgements of Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain

Whether Article 329A Clause (4) of the Constitution of India Valid?

In the landmark Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that Article 329A, Clause (4) of the Constitution of India was not valid. The court held that this provision violated the fundamental structure of the Constitution and, therefore, declared the Thirty-ninth (Amendment) Act, which introduced Article 329A, Clause (4), as illegal.

The key principle established by this ruling is that the amending power of the Parliament, under Article 368 of the Constitution, is not unlimited. Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that alters or undermines its basic structure. In Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain, the Court emphasized that holding free and fair elections is an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and the inclusion of Article 329A, Clause (4) was contrary to this fundamental principle, making it violative of the Constitution.

The judges identified several elements as part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, including:

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Republican and democratic form of government
• Secular character of the Constitution
• Federal character of the Constitution
• Separation of powers
• Unity and sovereignty of India
• Freedom of the individual
• Judicial review

The Court also highlighted that Article 329A violated the principle of “Audi alterem partem,” which is a principle of natural justice that ensures that no one should be condemned without a fair hearing. The right to a fair hearing is essential when challenging an election result. The amendment created an unjustifiable distinction between “persons holding office” and “other persons elected to parliament,” which undermined the principle of equality.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized in Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain that the rule of law is the foundation of democracy, and judicial review is a fundamental part of the Constitution that cannot be removed. Any classification in laws must be based on intelligible differences and must not lead to arbitrary actions by the government.

In summary, the Kesavananda Bharti case established that certain principles, including the basic structure of the Constitution and the right to a fair hearing, cannot be altered or removed by constitutional amendments, as they are essential to the democratic and legal framework of India.

Whether The Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974 and Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 are Constitutionally Valid?

In the context of the Thirty-ninth Amendment Act, Raj Narain challenged the constitutionality of the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The core arguments and the court’s decision are summarized as follows:

Absence of Parliamentarians: Raj Narain argued that many parliamentarians were detained under the Preventive Detention Act when the Thirty-ninth Amendment Act was passed. This resulted in their absence during parliamentary proceedings, and they were unable to provide their opinions or vote on these amendments. He contended that this absence rendered the amendments constitutionally invalid.

Court’s Decision: The court in Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain declined to intervene in this matter, stating that it was an issue between the two houses of Parliament. The court held that the constitutional validity of a law depends on the existence of legislative power, and except for the limitations outlined in Article 13 of the Constitution, no other prohibitions existed on the Legislature. The court affirmed that Parliament had the authority, under Article 368 of the Constitution, to frame laws pertaining to elections.

Powers of Parliament: The judgment in Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain emphasized that Parliament possessed the power to regulate various aspects of elections, including limiting election expenditures, determining grounds for disqualification, and defining corrupt practices. The court referred to Article 122 of the Constitution, which restricts the court from inquiring into irregularities in parliamentary proceedings. Article 122(1) specifies that the validity of parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned on the grounds of alleged procedural irregularities. Article 122(2) further states that the court does not have jurisdiction to question the conduct of business or the maintenance of order in Parliament or the actions of its members during parliamentary proceedings.

Validity of Amendments: The court ultimately held that the arguments challenging the validity of the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, lacked substance. In other words, it upheld the constitutionality of these amendments.

In summary, the court concluded that despite the absence of certain parliamentarians during the passing of the amendments, Parliament had acted within its constitutional powers when enacting the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The court’s judgment upheld the validity of these legislative changes.

Whether Indira Gandhi’s Election Valid or Void?

The court in Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain determined that Indira Gandhi’s election was valid, and she could continue to serve as the Prime Minister. The court did not find substantial evidence of election malpractice on her part. Additionally, the court clarified that the personal election expenses of a candidate should not be counted as part of the party’s election expenses, refuting Raj Narain’s claim that Indira Gandhi had exceeded the election expenditure limit in violation of election rules.

Regarding the allegation involving Yashpal Kapur, a government officer, the court found that Yashpal had submitted his resignation letter on January 13, 1971, to the President of India. The letter was acknowledged on January 25, 1971, and it took effect from January 14, 1971. Indira Gandhi had appointed Yashpal as her election agent starting from February 1. Since Yashpal had ceased to be a government officer from January 13, 1971, his assistance to Mrs. Gandhi did not constitute corrupt practice.

Furthermore, the court in Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain did not find clear evidence that Yashpal had delivered speeches in support of Mrs. Gandhi between January 7 and January 25, 1971. As a result, the Allahabad High Court’s ruling, which had barred Indira Gandhi from contesting elections for six years and required her to resign as Prime Minister, was overturned by the Supreme Court.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Indira Gandhi’s election and dismissed the allegations against her, allowing her to continue serving as Prime Minister.

Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Summary

The Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case involved allegations of election malpractice against Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in the 1971 Lok Sabha elections. Raj Narain contested the election’s validity, claiming that Gandhi exceeded campaign expenditure limits and that a government officer, Yashpal Kapur, improperly assisted her. 

The Supreme Court in Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing by Gandhi, ruling her election valid. It determined that personal election expenses should not be counted as party expenses. Moreover, Yashpal Kapur’s resignation prior to assisting Gandhi was deemed acceptable. The court also found no substantial proof of his endorsing speeches. Consequently, the Allahabad High Court’s order to bar Gandhi from elections and resign as Prime Minister was overturned.

Researcher: Upasana Borah is a 4th year B.B.A LL. B (Hons) student at N.E.F LAW COLLEGE GUWAHATI.

Author: Aishwarya Agrawal