INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI VS RAJ NARAIN (A.I.R. 1975 SC 2299) DISHA GUPTA LANDMARK JUDGMENT Sun, Mar 17, 2019, at ,03:02 PM BENCH COMPRISED OF: A.N. Ray (CJ) H.R. Khanna M.H. Beg K.K. Mathew Y.V. Chandrachud PARTIES NAME: Petitioner- Indira Nehru Gandhi Respondent- Shri Raj Narain and Another FACTS OF THE CASE: Raj Narain was the political contender against Indira Gandhi for Rae Bareilly Constituency in 1971 Lok Sabha General Elections. Mrs. Gandhi won the election & congress won the house with sweeping majority. However, after the results of the polls, Raj Narain filed a petition before High Court of Allahabad contending that Indira Gandhi has performed Election malpractices. On 12 June1975, The High Court of Allahabad speaking under Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha found Indira Gandhi guilty of misusing government machinery u/s-123(7) of Representative of Peoples Act, 1951. Section 123(7) of Representative of Peoples Act, 1951 states that- The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate’s election, from any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the following classes, namely:— (a) Gazetted officers; (b) Stipendiary judges and magistrates; (c) Members of the armed forces of the Union; (d) Members of the police forces; (e) Excise officers; (f) revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars, patels, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of land revenue collected by them but who do not discharge any police functions; (g) Such other class of persons in the service of the Government as may be prescribed Therefore, the court held that Indira Gandhi cannot continue as the Prime Minister of the nation, further, she cannot contest elections for another six years. Aggrieved by this decision Indira Gandhi went to appeal this ruling of Allahabad High court in Supreme Court. However, SC being in vacation at that point of time granted a conditional stay on execution on 24 June 1975. Thereafter, a state of emergency was declared by the then President Fakhrudeen Ali Ahmad citing internal disturbance but the real reason that led to the emergency was the High court judgment in Raj Narain v. Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court while granting conditional stay ordered the parties to appear before it on 11 August 1975 however on 10 August 1975 the President of emergency – stricken India passed 39th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971 by inserting Article 329-A to altogether bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court from entertaining the matter. This amendment made the elections of President, Prime Minister, Vice-President and the Speaker of Lok Sabha unjustifiable in the courts of law. It was stated by the Article 329A that the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker cannot be challenged in any court in the country. It can rather be challenged before a committee formed by the Parliament itself. Therefore, this 39th Amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain. ISSUES OF THE CASE: Whether or not Clause 4 of Article 329 A of the Constitution of India, was constitutionally valid? Whether or not, Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, was constitutionally valid? Whether or not, the election of Indira Gandhi was void? JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE: The court gave its decision on November 7, 1975. It must be kept in the mind that this was the first case when the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerela was applied by the apex court. The apex court upheld the contention of the petitioner and declared the impugned Clause 4 of Article 329A unconstitutional. The clause was struck down on the ground that it violated the free and fair elections which was an essential feature that formed the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Justice Mathew said that the clause destroyed essential democratic feature of the Constitution. The impugned amendment destroyed that possibility therefore it is violative of Basic feature of Constitution. Justice Chandrachud found the said amendment violative of the principle of Separation of Power as it intently transferred a pure judicial function into the hands of legislature. Further, he was certain that the said amendment is also violative of Article 14 as it creates an unequal position for specific members against others. Justice Ray found another basic feature violated by the said amendment i.e. rule of law. So, the five judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its orders regarding the above mentioned issues, in accordance with the reasons mentioned above in the Application Section. It was held that clause ‘4’ and ‘5’ of Article 329 A was unconstitutional as being violative of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974 & Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 were considered to be legal, perfectly constitutional and free from all infirmities. Election of Indira Gandhi, from her constituency Rae Bareli, was considered to be valid. REFERRED CASES: Golaknath & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.- A bench of eleven judges (such a large bench constituted for the first time) of the Supreme Court deliberated as to whether any part of the Fundamental Rights provisions of the constitution could be revoked or limited by amendment of the constitution. Secondly, the Supreme Court of India gave a momentous judgement on the 28th February, 1967 by declaring that the Fundamental Rights were transcendental and inviolable and the Parliament of India had no power to take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution by way of the Constitutional amendments. Their lordship felt that the liberty of the Individual in the Indian Constitution is subject to various “reasonable restrictions” which are expressly mentioned in the Constitution and that no further limitations should be imposed on it at any time. Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerela- The court by majority overruled the Golak Nath case which denied parliament the power to amend fundamental rights of the citizens. In this case the petitioners challenged the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th constitutional amendments. This decision is not just a landmark in the evolution of constitutional law, but a turning point in constitutional history. It is a landmark of the Supreme Court of India, and is the basis in Indian law for the exercise by the Indian judiciary of the power to judicially review, and strike down, amendments to the Constitution of India passed by the Indian Parliament which conflict with or seek to alter the Constitution’s basic structure. Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India- The validity of 42nd amendment Act was challenged on the ground that they are destructive of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. The Supreme Court by majority by 4 to 1 majority struck down clauses (4) and (5) of the article 368 inserted by 42nd Amendment, on the ground that these clauses destroyed the essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution. It was ruled by court that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution. After successive defeats in Golakanath, Kesavananda Bharti & Indira Nehru Gandhi the parliament desperately amended the Constitution and inserted a direct law claiming that there can be no limitation on Parliament’s power of amendment as well as there can be no challenge in courts of law on the amendments. This regressive and draconian law was passed by parliament in order to prove its supremacy.