This article is authored by Anmol Chaudhary, who has recently finished the Integrated Course (B.A. LL.B.) at the University School of Law, Rayat Bahra University, Mohali, Punjab. Throughout the internship at LeDroit India.
KEYWORDS:
∙ Rule of Law
∙ Judicial Review
∙ Constitution of India 1950
∙ Representation of People Act, 1951
1. INTRODUCTION:
Prashant Bhushan, a well-known lawyer and activist, wrote the non-fiction book ‘The Case That Shook India.’ This book examines the landmark case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Shri Raj Narain (1975). This case is an important legal turning point in the history of independent India. It led to the emergency declared from 1975 to 1977. The election of the Prime Minister was the main issue in this case. During this period, Parliament tried to take control and went beyond its limits by restricting the powers of the judiciary.
This case is significant because it addressed many parts of the Indian Constitution. These include the basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), the division of power among the executive, legislature, and judiciary, the need for free and fair elections, and the idea of judicial review. It is also important to mention that during the hearings, the emergency was in effect. Fundamental rights were suspended, and the press faced censorship, which led to the case not being reported. Additionally, this case significantly affected the political landscape of the country. Many members of Parliament were illegally detained without being given a fair trial.
2. FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case began with a complaint against Indira Nehru Gandhi, who was Prime Minister at the time, for being involved in unfair practices during the election. During the election, she represented the Congress Party, while the respondent represented the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The petitioner won the election and was re-appointed as Prime Minister of India. The respondent challenged the election by filing a petition in the Allahabad High Court. The respondent argued that the petitioner used government resources unfairly and violated election rules outlined in the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA).
The Allahabad High Court found the petitioner guilty under Section 123(7) of the RPA and declared her election void. The High Court also removed her from the position of Prime Minister and barred her from running in elections for the next six years. Upset by the decision, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued temporary stay orders, allowing her to attend parliamentary proceedings, but she could not vote.
While the case was pending, a state of emergency was declared, and the 39th Constitutional Amendment was introduced under Article 329A of the Constitution of India. This amendment stated that the elections of the Prime Minister and Speaker could not be legally challenged in any Indian court. As a result, this amendment removed the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in the ongoing case. Later, the validity of the amendment was challenged.
3. PETITION BEFORE THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT:
He filed a petition in the High Court of Allahabad on 24th April 1971 to challenge the elections won by Indira Gandhi, claiming they were tainted by wrongdoing. Shri Raj Narain accused Indira Nehru Gandhi of breaking the model code of conduct for elections, which is outlined in the Representation of People’s Act of 1951. He also claimed that she misused government resources for election purposes. Additionally, he stated that she provided money, liquor, and blankets to sway voters and influence their choices.
4. DECISION GIVEN BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT:
The case was presented to Justice Jagmohan Lal of the High Court of Allahabad. In his judgment, he found Indira Gandhi guilty of the allegations made against her by Shri Raj Narain. She was found guilty of misusing government money and resources under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951. The High Court decided to bar her from running for Prime Minister for six years. Following this, she, the appellant, appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision. At that time, the Supreme Court was on vacation, so it granted a stay on the High Court’s ruling.
Meanwhile, the President of India, Fakhrudeen Ali Ahmed, declared a state of emergency due to internal unrest. However, the public understood the true reason for the emergency declaration: the decision made by the Allahabad High Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raj Narain (1975).
5. CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE 39TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT:
The Supreme Court ordered both parties in the case to appear before the court on August 10, 1975. The President passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which added a new provision, Article 329-A, to the Indian Constitution. Article 329-A stated that the election of the speaker and Prime Minister could not be questioned in a court of law. Instead, they would only be handled by a committee formed by Parliament for that purpose. This change limited the Supreme Court’s power to address election-related cases. Shri Raj Narain challenged the validity of the 39th Constitutional Amendment, arguing that it was unconstitutional and should be struck down.
6. ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE:
The following issues were raised in the case before the Supreme Court:
∙ Whether Indira Gandhi’s election was valid.
∙ Whether the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, are constitutionally valid.
∙ Whether clause (4) of Article 329-A is unconstitutional.
7. LAWS INVOLVED:
Constitution of India: The Indian Constitution is the highest law of the country. It was accepted on November 26, 1949, and took effect on January 26, 1950. It is the longest written Constitution in the world. Some of the provisions of the Constitution relevant to 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.
∙ 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.
∙ 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.
∙ 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.
∙ Article 102 of the Indian Constitution: This Article deals with the disqualifications for the membership of either House of Parliament.
∙ Article 105 of the Indian Constitution: This Article deals with the powers and privileges of the House of Parliament and its members.
∙ 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.
∙ 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.
∙ 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.
∙ 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.
∙ 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.
∙ 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.
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:
1) A returned candidate was not qualified on the date of the election.
2) Any corrupt practice has been committed by him.
3) Any nomination has been improperly rejected, and
4) The result of the candidate has been affected by improper acceptance, corrupt practices, improper rejection, and non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution.
∙ 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 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.
8. JUDGEMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE:
The Supreme Court stated that the election of Indira Nehru Gandhi was valid. The Court allowed her to continue as the Prime Minister of India because it found no strong evidence against the claimed wrongdoings. Additionally, the Court mentioned that her personal expenses during the elections could not be counted as party election expenses. It rejected Shri Raj Narain’s claim that she went over her election spending limits.
Regarding Yashpal Kapur, a government officer who resigned on January 13, 1971, to the President and was no longer a government official, the Court found no clear evidence that he supported Indira Nehru Gandhi by giving speeches. The Supreme Court overturned the Allahabad High Court’s order that had banned her from contesting elections for six years. The Court allowed her to remain as the Prime Minister of India by canceling the Allahabad High Court’s decision.
In this case, the court chose not to intervene, stating that it is an issue between two houses of Parliament. The validity of the laws relies on the legislature’s authority, with the exception outlined in Article 13, which addresses judicial review. The court supported Parliament’s power under Article 368 to amend laws related to elections. It referenced Article 122, which prevents it from questioning Parliament’s proceedings. The court emphasized that it is Parliament’s responsibility, not the courts’, to handle election matters such as delimiting constituencies, setting grounds for disqualification, and managing election expenses. The Supreme Court confirmed the validity of the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. It noted that even if members were absent during the discussions on these amendments, Parliament acted within its powers when enacting these laws, and therefore, they are valid.
While addressing the third issue, the Court emphasized the violation of natural justice principles, specifically ‘Audi Alteram Partem.’ This principle means that no one should be judged without a chance to be heard, and everyone should have a fair opportunity to present their case. The Apex Court, when evaluating the validity of the 39th Constitutional Amendment from 1975, found it created an unfair distinction between ‘persons who hold office’ and ‘other persons elected to Parliament.’ This distinction also violated the equality principles outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court believed that the classification of Parliament members was unreasonable and lacked a reasonable basis. The Court also noted that judicial review and the rule of law are essential principles of the Constitution and cannot be disregarded.
The Court referenced the landmark judgment of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), which established the basic structure doctrine. This doctrine states that the Parliament can amend or change the Constitution, but it cannot alter its fundamental structure. The power of Parliament to make amendments under Article 368 is not absolute; it cannot compromise the basic structure. Through several judgments, the Court identified key elements of this structure, including the supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, judicial review, and the secular and federal features of the Constitution. Based on this reasoning, the Court declared that Article 329-A clause (4) is unconstitutional and contradicts the Fundamental Rights defined in Part III of the Indian Constitution.
9. RATIONALE BEHIND THIS JUDGEMENT:
The court, while delivering the judgment, considered several points outlined below.
The Constitutional Amendment introduced by Parliament affects the basic structure of the Constitution. It prevents the judiciary from exercising its authority to review the validity of laws, which undermines the separation of powers and judicial independence. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution address equality before the law and equality of opportunity. These principles are also stated in the Preamble. It is Parliament’s responsibility to promote this equality. Although Articles 31A and 31B limit judicial review, this does not give the legislature the freedom to act arbitrarily. Any classification made by the legislature must serve the public interest.
The basic structure theory cannot be precisely defined, and the doctrine of pith and substance must be considered to determine if the legislature is acting within its limits and to prevent illegal overreach.
Regarding the arguments about the Amendment Acts of 1974 and 1975 being subject to the basic structure doctrine, the Court noted that these arguments fail for two reasons. First, the legislative measures do not fall under basic features. Second, the majority opinion in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) stated that the 29th Amendment, which added Article 31-B, was not challenged as it did not destroy or harm the basic structure.
Concerning the High Court’s ruling that Indira Gandhi engaged in corrupt practices under Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, and that Uttar Pradesh government officials, including the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, assisted her, it is important to note that these officers acted in their official roles and followed official orders.
10. ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:
The case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain in 1975 is an important ruling by the Supreme Court. It upholds the doctrine of basic structure, emphasizing that Parliament’s powers are not absolute. These powers have certain limits. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Constitution is paramount and that the judiciary serves as its protector. This case also reinforced two key principles of the Constitution: the separation of powers and judicial review. It relates to elections, where citizens choose their representatives, believing they will act in the public’s best interest. Elections must be free and fair, allowing citizens to select worthy and honest candidates.
The Court also reinforced the principle of equality. It stated that everyone is equal under the law and should not be treated differently. All individuals are subject to the same laws. The sudden introduction of the 39th Constitutional Amendment in 1975, during a declared emergency, which added Article 329-A, showed the government acted arbitrarily. By ruling this amendment invalid and unconstitutional, the Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the rule of law over arbitrary governance.
It’s important to note that after the Allahabad High Court’s decision, Indira Gandhi faced significant criticism. In response, she declared a state of emergency on June 25, 1975, citing internal unrest and threats to national security. This emergency suspended fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution. Opposition parties designated June 25, 1975, as a ‘black day’ in Indian history since many political leaders, journalists, and activists were arrested. The emergency period sparked various political movements and unrest across the country, particularly in Bihar and Gujarat. All these events, along with the High Court’s ruling that barred Indira Gandhi from running in elections, created a turbulent atmosphere nationwide. This turmoil included controversial actions like the removal of slum areas and forced sterilization campaigns led by her son, Sanjay Gandhi, raising concerns about human rights violations. Once the emergency ended in 1977, it marked the close of one of the darkest chapters in India’s history since independence.
11. OBSERVATION:
The Supreme Court in this case noted that the right to a free and fair election is a key part of the constitution’s basic structure. The Court referred to the ruling in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where it was stated that Parliament has unlimited power to make amendments that alter the constitution’s basic structure. The Court also pointed out that the rule of law and judicial review are essential to democracy. Parliament cannot go around these fundamentals by changing laws. In determining the election’s validity for the petitioner, the Supreme Court found no substantial evidence showing that the petitioner misused resources or laws.
12. CONCLUSION:
The judiciary has repeatedly played a key role in upholding the Constitution’s supremacy and its important principles, such as equality before the law, equal protection of the law, separation of powers, and the rule of law. It serves as a watchdog against the arbitrary actions of the state government. The Supreme Court confirmed the doctrine of separation of powers. It ruled that Parliament cannot act independently to make decisions outside its domain. Parliament must operate within its powers without interfering with the decision-making authority of the judiciary.
13. WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS?
Montesquieu, a French judge, introduced this doctrine. It refers to the division of powers among different parts of the government: the legislative, executive, and judiciary. In the Indian Constitution, Article 50 addresses the division of powers between the judiciary and the executive. The main goal of this doctrine is to prevent the misuse of power.
14. WHAT WAS THE POLITICAL IMPACT OF THE CASE?
The period of emergency significantly affected Indian politics and led to various political movements throughout the country. It created an unstable environment that included unrest in Bihar and Gujarat, the removal of slum areas, and forced sterilization campaigns initiated by Sanjay Gandhi, the son of Indira Gandhi. These actions also raised concerns about human rights violations.
