Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 2299

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 2299

NIGHILKUMAR M (Government Law College, Dharmapuri) Affiliated to Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This paper is analysing the case Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, also known as election case.  This case discusses the validity of 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, validity of Article 329A and the matter of electoral malpractice. The case is discussed by the Article 14, 31-B, 368, 329(A) of the Constitution of India and Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act. Fact of this case is the Lok Sabha election was held in 1971. In this election Indira Gandhi was won and Raj Narain who is candidate against her, alleged against her for electoral malpractice. The case was filed before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court was passed an order against Indira Gandhi that the election of Indira Gandhi is void on the ground of corrupt practice and she misused the Government vehicle. Indhira Gandhi was appealed before the Supreme Court of India against the judgment of High Court of Allahabad. The Apex Court after heard both side arguments passed the Judgment that the Article 329A which was inserted by 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975, was repealed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 and the election of Indira Nehru Gandhi is valid.

Keywords: emergency case, election case, electoral malpractice, article 329A, indira gandhi, 39th amendment act, constituion of india, representative of peoples act, supreme court of india

  1. CASE DETAILS
Judgement Cause TitleIndira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain &Anr.
Case NumberAppeal (Civil) 887 of 1975
Date of Judgement07.11.1975
CourtSupreme Court of India
QuorumA.N. Ray (CJ) & H.R. Khanna & K.K. Mathew & M.H. Beg & Y.V. Chandrachud
AuthorA.N. Ray
CitationAIR 1975 SC 2299
Legal Provisions InvolvedArticle 14, 31-B, 368, 329(A) of the Constitution of India. Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

In this case dealing with the legal concept of constitutional validity of Article 329A and electoral malpractice or corrupt practice Article 329A says about Special Provision as to elections to parliament in the case of Prime Minister and Speaker. This Article speaks about no jurisdiction to exercise the matter of Prime Minister and Speaker and it was inserted in 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975. After the judgment passed by the Court this provision was repealed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978.

FACTS OF THE CASE

  •  In 1971, Lok Sabha General Election was conducted. Raj Narain was one of the candidates of that election who the political contender against Indira Gandhi for Rae Bareilly constituency.
  •  In this election, Indira Gandhi and her party were won by securing 352 out of 518 seats. Raj Narain filed a case to nullify the election and against Indira Gandhi as accused for corrupt practise to her victory in that election. He alleged that Indira Gandhi used government vehicle, armed force and local police, distributed the liquor to vote for her.
  • Allahabad High Court declared that election of Indira Gandhi was void on the ground of corrupt practice and she misused the Government vehicle under Section 123(7) of Representative of People’s Act, 1951 and further she was barred from contesting the election for another six years.Indira Gandhi was aggrieved by the decision of High Court of Allahabad. She appeals to Supreme Court of India against the decision of that High Court and questioned about validity of Article 329A which amended by 39th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1975 was challenged, about Special provision as to elections to Parliament in the case of Prime Minister and Speaker.
  1. LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

There are three main issues of this case to be framed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India as follows,

  1. Whether clause 4 of Article 329A of the Constitution of India is constitutionally valid or not?
  2. Whether Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974 and Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 are constitutionally valid or not?
  3. whether Indira Gandhi’s election is valid or not?

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Appellant submitted that,

  • The Attorney General, representing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the Keshavnanda Bharticase is not a relevant precedent to determine if judicial review is essential for ensuring free and fair elections. They emphasized that the aforementioned case focused on the amendment process of the Constitution, not the conduct of elections.
  • The said Article and Representation of People’s Act were passed for taking away the petitioner’s legal right. these acts were violating the free and fair election. Judiciary has power to interfere the election dispute. Amendments were violating the basic structure and especially, the principle of equality. So, these acts are unconstitutional.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that,

  • The respondent challenged the amendment act, arguing it violated the “basic structure doctrine” established by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India. This doctrine limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, ensuring it cannot alter its core principles.
  • The respondent further argued that while Article 368 grants Parliament the ability to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute. The 39th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975, by removing the courts’ jurisdiction over Prime Minister and Speaker elections, allegedly undermines the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. This separation is crucial, as the judiciary acts as the guardian of fundamental rights through judicial review, ensuring fair elections, a cornerstone of any democracy.Finally, the respondent contended that the amendment’s passage was illegal due to the detention of opposition MPs, violating the principle that even a two-thirds majority cannot grant Parliament the power to exercise executive or judicial functions.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

  • Article 329A of the Constitution of India denote that Special Provision as to elections to parliament in the case of Prime Minister and Speaker. – Repealed.
  • Article 14, 31-B, 368, 329(A) of the Constitution of India.
  • Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act.

JUDGEMENT

The Honourable Supreme Court of India pronounced the judgment of this case by majority that,

Amendment Act, 1951 and 1974 and Clause 4 of Article 329A of the Constitution of India is void:

  • The Amendment Act, 1951 and 1974 were violated the basic structure of the Constitution. So, these amendment acts were struck down on the grounds that takes the power of jurisdiction of the court of law and hampers the judicial review. Clause 4 of Article 329A also struck down because of, The issue falls outside the scope of Parliament’s authority as it impinges upon the core, basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
  • This Honourable Supreme Court of India declared that Article 329A (4) of the Constitution of India is constitutionally void by using the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati.

Indira Gandhi election is valid:

  • Indira Gandhi was filed nomination on 1st February, 1971. Yashpal Kapoor was work under the government service. he terminated his job on 13th January, 1971. After on that date, he gave his speech in favour of Indira Gandhi and violated the provision of the Act, 1951. The Court observed that he delivered his speech after terminated his job on 13th January and so it does not part of corrupt practice under the Act, 1951.
  • The court cited Section 77(b) of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951, clarifying that a political party’s election expenses are not the candidate’s individual expense. This section also specifies that government services used under Section 123(7) are not considered authorized by the candidate. Therefore, the court argues that Indira Gandhi, the contesting candidate, cannot be solely held liable for Shri. Yashpal Kapoor’s speech.
  • The Representative of the People’s Act of 1974 (Amendment) and the Election Laws Act of 1975 (Amendment) Act are consistent with the Constitution and are considered legal without any weakness.
  • Indira Gandhi elections in the Rae Bareli constituency was considered to be valid.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

Indeed, this case is celebrated and land mark case. also known as election case. Again, and again court has proved that protection of rights of citizen or people by the Constitution of India, rule of law and especially ensured that the citizens are not deprived of free and fair elections.

  1. REFERENCES
    1. Important Cases Referred
  •                Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[1]
  •                Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[2]
  • Important Statutes Referred
  •                Constitution of India, 1950.
  •                Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974.
  •                Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975.

Leave a Reply