INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI vs RAJ NARAIN

 

CASE ANALYSIS : INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI vs RAJ NARAIN

 

 

 

 

CASE NO.:

 

Appeal (civil) 887 of 1975

 

PETITIONER:

 

INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI

 

RESPONDENT:

 

SHRI RAJ NARAIN & ANR.

 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/11/1975

 

BENCH:

 

A.N. RAY (CJ) & H.R. KHANNA & K.K. MATHEW & M.H. BEG & Y.V. CHANDRACHUD

 

 

 

 

Background : During the 5th Lok Sabha elections during 1971, Indira Gandhi contested for the elections from the Rae Bareli constituency in Uttar Pradesh. It was her 2nd time contesting for the seat of Prime Minister. She was opposed by Raj Narain who was a member of Ram Manohar Lohia’s Samyukta Socialist Party (SSP). When the results were announced, the Indian National Congress sweeped a clear victory, winning 352 seats out of the total tally of 518 and Indira Gandhi triumphed the Rae Bareli seat with a huge margin and sweeped out Raj Narain completely.

 

Raj Narain, after getting the information of his ‘huge’ defeat, finally filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court accusing Indira Gandhi of using corrupt practices in her election campaign. He challenged the election of Indira Gandhi by putting allegations on her of not following the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 by violating the election codes and using government vehicles and distributing liquor and blankets to the public in order to negatively influence them to vote for her. He also alleged that she distributed money and exceeded the amount limit set for election campaigns, which was Rs. 35,000 then.

The court decided against Mrs. Gandhi and declared her election from the seat of Rae Bareli as void on the grounds that “Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi obtained and procured the assistance of the said Shri Yashpal Kapur for the furtherance of prospects of her election from the constituency aforesaid inasmuch as the said Shri Yashpal Kapur was a Gazetted Officer in the service of Government of India when his assistance was obtained and pro cured The said Shri Yashpal Kapur on the direction of Smt. Indira Gandhi organized the electioneering work for her in the constituency during the period commencing from 27-12-1970”.¹ The High Court banned Smt. Gandhi from contesting election for the next 6 years.

 

Subsequently, Indira Gandhi filed an appeal before the Supreme Court to re-examine the matter. While the application was pending before the apex court, since it was on a holiday at that point

 

 

¹The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (AIR1975 SC 2299)

and granted stay, the parliament passed the 39th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971 by inserting Article 392A and the new Article 71 in the constitution which resulted in barring the Supreme Court to interfere in matters of election of Prime Minister, President, Vice-President and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Also, the Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 were brought into place while the State of Emergency was announced in the country.

 

 

Issues :

 

1.     The constitutionality of the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 was challenged

 

2.     The validity of the Representation of Peoples (Amendment) Act, 1974 was put forth

 

3.     Also, the constitutional validity of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 was placed before the court to examine.

 

 

Arguments raised:

 

1.     The counsel representing the respondent side argued that the 39th Amendment was not according to the spirit of the constitution since it curtailed the jurisdiction of the court and hence was against the ‘basic structure doctrine’ as decided in the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala.²

 

The appellant argued that amending the constitution was well within the powers of the legislative and it was in no means an extension of the powers provided to it, and that the judiciary had no powers to interfere in between.

2.     The respondent also argued that ‘the control over the result of the elections and on the question whether the election of any person is valid or invalid is vested in the judiciary under the provisions of Article 329 and Article 136. The jurisdiction of judicial determination is taken away, and, therefore, the democratic character of the Constitution is destroyed.’³ Tampering with the rights of every citizen to have a free and fair election was also one of the matters the respondents argued.

 

The appellants rebutted that ‘there are many countries like France, Japan, and the United States of America where consistently with the democratic set up the determination of such controversies is by legislatures or by authorities other than the courts.’⁴

 

3.     Respondents also argued that allowing Smt. Gandhi continuing her tenure for Prime Ministership even after the decision of the Allahabad High Court which found her guilty of tampering elections and using unfair means to benefit her goes against the very spirit of democracy.

 

4.     The passing of the Bills while arrest of various leaders and members of various political parties was also opposed by the respondents calling it unethical and wanted the court to interfere as every member has it’s right to vote and abstaining them from the same without even stating the reason for their detention.

 

 

² Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225

³ Manupatra - MANU/SC/0304/1975

⁴ ibid

 

 

Judgment : The much awaited judgment was announced in favor of Smt. Indira Gandhi by a majority of 3-2 with the then Chief Justice A.N. Ray, Justice Mathew and Justice Y.V. Chandrachud on the majority side of the judgment.

 

The court while deciding the case, struck down clause 4 of article 329A calling it unconstitutional as per the basic structure doctrine decided in the Kesavananda Bharati case. It was the first time when the Kesavanada Bharati case was mentioned.

While referring to the tampering of elections, Justice H.R. Khanna stated that free and fair elections are an integral part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The court also added that excluding it from judicial review would go against the essence of the constitution and that (a) rule of law, (b)free and fair election, and (c) judicial review are integral part of the basic structure of the constitution.

Justice Mathew further stated that “a healthy democracy can only function when there is the possibility of free and fair elections, The impugned amendment destroyed that possibility and therefore violated the basic structure of the Constitution”.

The bench further added that “the said amendment violated the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem since it denies the right of fair hearing to the one who is challenging the election of the members mentioned under the amendment. Democracy is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Parliament does not have the power to pass a retrospective law validating an invalid election. This exercise is nothing but an example of despotic use of unrestrained and unfettered power”.

Justice Chandrachud added to this that “The 39th amendment is violative of the principle of separation of power as it intently transferred a purely judicial function into the hands of the legislature. Further, he was certain that the said amendment is also violative of Article 14 as it created inequality for certain members against others”.

 

 

Critical Analysis : In my point of view, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court was accurate in it’s ratio decidendi for announcing Smt. Gandhi guilty of election malpractices and using the state machinery for personal electoral benefits, and henceforth banning her for contesting elections for the next 6 years.

 

Even though the Supreme Court judgment may be more sound in terms of legal technicality, it lacked the concept of justice and morality. The amendments made after the judgment of the Allahabad High Court were clearly in pursuance to clear off all the grounds for which the HC had found Smt. Gandhi guilty and the apex court did not take into cognizance of this fact. The fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was aware of Smt. Gandhi’s contentions of getting away of the judicial vindictiveness by amending the Constitution by detaining the major political opponents through the veil of emergency and passing the bills without much hindrance,and yet the court did not focus on the morale and ethics of justice and overturned the Allahabad High Court judgment, was something that yet haunts the history of the post-independence India.

Although, the Supreme Court struck down clause 4 of article 329A, which was decided in the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala⁵, applying the ‘basic structure doctrine’, it was

 

 

⁵ ibid

evident that the amendments made in the People’s Representative (Amendment) Act,1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, which is now referred to as the Amendment Act, 1974 and 1975, were done in order to restrict the court in exercising its powers and to set herself free off the charges. The apex court stating that decisions relating amending and making laws were totally in the domain of the parliament and the court had nothing to do with it was totally ignorant of it as the holy book for the courts across India is the Indian Constitution and it gives the responsibility to the Supreme Court to act as the watchdog of, not only the constitution but also the spirits of it. In this case, there was an attempt by the parliament to choke off the true essence of the Indian constitution by various amendments and yet the ‘sole representative of the savior of the constitution’ remained silent. Anyways, the court struck down clause 4 of article 329A and later in various judgments went on realizing that it was not absolutely correct in deciding the judgment for the case.

 

 

Conclusion : This case represents the horrors of the infamous ‘Emergency Days’. When Indira Gandhi inforced emergency in order to detain political opponents, his counsel, Mr. Nanabhoy Palkhiwala resigned as a mark of protest. This showed how wrong she was in imposing emergency for political benefits. Today, this case is one of the most cited ones and has served as a lesson for the judiciary of how the legislature may use its powers for personal gains. The case also marked the importance of judicial overview and that legislative was bound to follow the rule of law and it can not, in no circumstances, use the powers confronted to it for illicit gains, and that power sharing is of utmost importance under the constitution and all the bodies, be it legislative, executive or judiciary, are confined in its domain. The case also reiterated that free and fair elections are an integral part of the constitution and every citizen of India is entitled to experience it.