CASE COMMENT
Indira
Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain &Anr on 7 November, 1975
Equivalent
Citations: 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333
Bench:
A.N. Ray (CJ)
PETITIONER:……………………………………………...
“INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI”
V.
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
CITATION:
1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333
AIR 1975
SC 2299
Introduction-
The State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Raj
Narain case heard by the Allahabad High Court that found the Prime Minister of India Indira
Gandhi guilty
of electoral malpractices. The ruling on the case that had been filed by the
defeated opposition candidate, Raj
Narain,
Justice Jagmohanlal
Sinha invalidated
Gandhi's win and barred her from holding elected office for six years. The
decision caused a political crisis in India that led to the imposition of
a state
of emergency by Gandhi's government from 1975 to 1977.
What Was the Constitutional Validity Of Clause 4 Of
Article 329-A?
Doctrineof Basic Structure
The Doctrine of Basic design says that Parliament's
limitless ability to alter the Constitution is dependent upon limitation, and
that implies it shouldn't abuse the essential construction of the Constitution.
This tenet was set down in the Keshvananda Bharti case.
Article 368 of the Constitution enables the
Parliament to re-examine the Constitution by development, assortment or
dissolution of any arrangement as demonstrated by the methodology put down in
that.It was communicated that Clause (4) of Article 329-A should be struck down
as it abused the norm of free and fair decisions which is a vital piece of the
fundamental design of the Constitution. It is seen that the best way to
determine any debate which emerges in a political decision is by means of legal
survey and article 329-A grabs away these privileges from the court. Free and
fair decisions are the critical highlights of a majority rules system and it is
vital that assuming races are won by vindictiveness, legal executive needs to
intercede to guarantee a fair outcome is given.It was contended by the
respondent that depending on the 1973 judgment of Kesvananda Bharti, battled
that the Parliament under Article 368 is simply able to set down general
standards' which oversees the organs of the state. Subsequently, regardless of
whether the assurance is substantial is a legal right under Article 329 and
136, the said revision will in general disturb the majority rule construction
of the country.
The Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1974
And The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 Being Constitutionally Valid?
At the point when the 39th Amendment was passed by
the Indira Gandhi Government, a large portion of the individuals from the
Parliament were missing and captured under Preventive confinement. It was seen
that this revision annihilated partition of abilities and legal survey which
additionally are a vital piece of the essential construction of the
Constitution. It annihilated the thought of uniformity while there shouldn't be
contrasts between individuals holding high workplaces and individuals who are
chosen for the Parliament.
Since the vast majority of the resistance MP's were
under preventive detainment, they couldn't cast a ballot in the parliamentary
procedures and offer their viewpoints in regards to the correction which helped
the Congress party. This was asserted by Raj Narain. Nonetheless, the court
said that this matter was connected between both the Houses of Parliament was
can't be meddled upon by the legal executive.
Issue of the case-
The main question involved in the case was of the validity of clause (4)
of the Constitution 39th Amendment Act, 1975. The contention
was that this clause in question not only wipedout the High Court judgement but
also the election and the law relating thereto.
Facts of the case-
In 1971, Indira Gandhi participated in general
elections and campaigned a lot to win the elections of Rae Bareilly in Uttar
Pradesh and lastly she won. But in the opposition of her, there was a leader of
Ram Manohar Lohiya’s SSP, Raj Narain who was very confident for his victory but
lost the elections. As a result of his disappointment, he filed a petition in
the Allahabad High Court against Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister to
nullify the election as she her election campaign were done by many police,
government officers and armed forces too and also she distributed liquors and
blankets to the voters. Allahabad High Court declared elections void on the
grounds of corrupt practices and hence granted conditional stay on her. This
created a situation of emergency. During this time, Indira Gandhi passed the 39th
Constitutional Amendment which led to an addition of Article 392A to the
Constitution of India which states that the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker cannot be
questioned in any court of law, it can only be challenged before a committee
formed by the Parliament itself. Thus, barring the Supreme Court from deciding
Indira Gandhi’s case. Therefore, the constitutional validity of the
39th amendment was challenged.
Contention of the parties-
Arguments
by Petitioners:
The
petitioners contended that the majority decision of Kesvananda Bharti judgment
cannot be taken as a precedent to decide whether the elections would be free
and fair. They said that when the Constitution of various countries do leave
their election disputes to the Legislature, there are a various article in our
Constitution as well which show the judicial review can be excluded in such
cases as a matter of policy.Coming back to the landmark case, they that how
Kesvananda Bharti and Shankari Prasad both did not cover the ambit of electoral
disputes and rather they dealt with the meaning of the word amendment'. Lastly,
they argued that the rule of law is not a part of basic structure and apart
from Article 14, our Constitution recognizes neither doctrine of equality nor
rule of law.
Arguments
by Respondents:
The
main argument of the petitioner revolved around the 39th amendment which was
affecting the basic structure of the Constitution' and also takes away the
power of jurisdiction of courts under election petition which was unfair to the
judiciary. They presented that the function of the Legislature is to legislate
and can make and pass laws. However, the power to decide the constitutional
validity of a law, lies with the judiciary.
Article
14[1] guarantees Equality before law and equal protection of law. The
President, when passed such law, placed himself and other people above the law
which wasn't justified. Rule of law and judicial review are the integral part
of the constitution and cannot be altered as stated in the Fundamental Rights
Case.
The
Amendment was passed when there wasn't majority of MP's in the house who cannot
vote in favour or against it. And lastly, Article 368 does not empower
Parliament to amend Constitution to decide who wins or loses the election.
Judgment-
The
court gave its judgment on seventh November, 1975 and was the main case wherein
the milestone choice of Kesvananda Bharti case was applied. The peak court
maintained the conflict of the respondent and pronounced proviso (4) of Article
329-An as illegal.Mathew J said that Article 329-A(4) obliterated the essential
construction of the constitution. He was of the view that a solid majority
rules system' can work when there is probability of free and fair decisions and
the upbraided change annihilated that chance.Chandrachud J. observed that the
change was violative of the standard of partition of abilities' as it wilfully
moved a capacity under the control of the official which was absolutely legal.
He was additionally of the view that the correction is violative of Article 14
as it makes inconsistent places of explicit individuals from the Parliament
against others. Ray C.J held that another fundamental component was disregarded
by the said revision i.e law and order and Justice Khanna was of the assessment
of infringement of standards of free and fair decisions.The seat likewise held
that the change was violative of the standards of normal equity i.e. Audi
Alterum Partemwhich implies paying attention to the opposite side' as it was
denying the option to fair knowing about the people who were testing the
appointment of the individuals referenced in the Amendment.Thus it was on
differed reasons that the 39th Amendment act, 1975 was struck down as it was
unlawful and violative of the essential construction of the Constitution.
Critical
Analysis-
The
choice in the Indira Gandhi versus Raj Narain case was a valiant one taken by
the legal executive to take care of the greedy' Parliament in the Constitution.
It was displayed to the Parliament that they are not by any means the only one
in the majority rules government and legal executive will constantly be there
to maintain the Constitution from the hurtful demonstrations of the
Parliament.Notwithstanding, despite the fact that the judgment was
hypothetically correct, it was in numerous ways defective on the grounds of
equity, value and clean conscience. It was basically obvious that the changes
were made to remove all grounds on which Mrs. Indira Gandhi was seen as at
fault for by Allahabad High Court. Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court neglected
to see that why these alterations were made in any case.Whenever numerous
resistance chiefs were under Preventive detainment, they couldn't cast a ballot
against the revision (again it was a determined move by the Gandhi party),
Supreme court said that it involved the Parliament and the legal executive can
have nothing to do with it which was uninformed about the Supreme Court. It was
oblivious in dealing with the issue when Indira Gandhi mishandled her powers to
change those regulations which charged her of defilement.The Hon'ble Supreme
Court was particularly mindful of the way that Indira Gandhi had made the
revisions to satisfy her political exigencies and had capriciously constrained
emergency to save herself from being demonstrated liable. Raj Narain expected
to hold on for an impressive time span and what he got was unfortunate
reasoning. In any case, the Supreme Court struck down statement 4 of Article
329 being violative of the essential construction.
Conclusion-
The
court demonstrated that the Parliament is by Law and its not the other way
around. Legal executive squashed the Parliament's course to lay out
incomparability and the endeavour to make itself over the Constitution. The
Court upholded the embodiment of a majority rules system i.e free and fair
races.In the essence of the substance, the fundamental point of the Amendment
was to switch the High Court's judgment that nullified Indira Gandhi's
political race. And on second thought of leaving, she forced crisis and passed
the draconian 39th Amendment Act,1975 which was struck somewhere around the
Supreme Court. The case maintained both Rule of Law and Separation of Power and
made plainly approval or refutation of races is without a doubt a legal matter
and can't be meddled by the Legislature.Assume control over maintained majority
rule government. Indira Gandhi's malignant endeavours of
placing her Government's administrative powers over the Constitution came all
crashing down and the Fundamental Rights Case choice ended up being exact and
profoundly exact.
0 Comments