INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI V. RAJ NARAIN

 

CASE ANALYSIS OF INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI V. RAJ NARAIN 

Title of the Case: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Anr.
Citation: 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333.
Court: Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court of India.
Bench: Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha (HC) and Justice Mathews, Chief Justice Ray, Justice Beg, Justice Khanna and Justice Chandrachud.

INTRODUCTI

ON

India went into a state of emergency from 1975 to 1977 because of the important case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain. This case made people question the power of the judiciary and showed how Parliament thought the judicial system should work. In this case, Parliament wanted to use its power, but the court stopped it from doing so. This case brought into question the Constitution's basic structure, the courts' authority, the separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, the functions of the legislature, the right to free and fair elections, the rule of law, judicial review, and political justice.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

In 1971, Indira Gandhi and her party won 352 of the 518 seats up for election to the Lok Sabha. She ran against SSP leader Raj Narain, who was backed by Ram Manohar Lohia, for the Rae Bareilly seat. He was sure he could beat Mrs. Gandhi, but he didn't even come close.

After he lost, he filed a petition to have the election thrown out, saying that Indira Gandhi won by using unethical methods. Gandhi's election as Prime Minister was questioned in the Allahabad High Court on April 24, 1971, because Gandhi had broken the Representation of the People Act, 1951 election rules. He said that many parts of the government, like the military and the local police, were behind her campaign. He also said that Indira Gandhi spent more on her election campaigns than she was allowed to by using government vehicles and giving voters beer and blankets.

On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court said that Indira Gandhi's election was not legal because it was done in an unethical way. Justice Jag Mohanlal Sinha spoke for the court when he said that Gandhi had broken Section 123(7) of the 1951 Representation of the People Act by misusing public funds

Because of this, she couldn't run for public office for the next six years. She wasn't happy with the verdict, so she filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. However, the appeal was lost, so the SC put a hold on the execution.

ISSUES RAISED

1.    Whether Article 329A Clause (4) of the Constitution of India is Valid?

2.    Whether Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974 And Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 are Constitutionally Valid?

3.    Whether Indira Gandhi’s Election is Valid or Void?

 

 

CONTENTION

 

Arguments By Respondents

The petitioner's argument was based on the 39th Amendment, which changed the basic structure of the Constitution in a way that took away the courts' right to hear election petitions. They said that part of the Legislature's job is to pass laws and write new ones. On the other hand, it is up to the court to decide whether or not a law is legal.

 

Article 14[1] guarantees that everyone is treated the same by the law and has the same rights before the law. When this law was made, the President, without meaning to, put himself and others above the law. The basic rights case showed that the rule of law and judicial review are constitutional parts that can't be changed.

 

Since there wasn't a majority of MPs present who could vote for or against the amendment, it was passed. Lastly, Article 368 does not give the legislature the power to change the Constitution to change the outcome of an election.

Arguments by Petitioners

The people who signed the petition said that the Kesvananda Bharti majority decision shouldn't be used to decide if the elections will be fair and free or not. Even though other countries' constitutions don't give the legislature power over election disputes, many parts of ours suggest that the court may be kept out of such cases as a matter of policy.

 

When it came to the case that set a precedent, Kesvananda Bharti and Shankar Prasad were more concerned with the meaning of the word "amendment" than with the wide range of electoral problems. Except for Article 14, neither equality nor the rule of law are mentioned in our Constitution

 

JUDGEMENT

 

What Was the Constitutional Validity Of Clause 4 Of Article 329-A?

Doctrine of Basic Structure

The Doctrine of Basic Structure says that Parliament's ability to change the Constitution in any way it wants is limited, so it can't go against the Constitution's basic design. This idea was made with Keshvananda Bharti in mind.

Article 368 of the Constitution says that the Parliament has the power to change the Constitution by adding, changing, or taking away any article.

Clause (4) of Article 329-A was ruled unconstitutional because it went against the Constitution's fundamental guarantee of free and fair elections. Article 329-A takes away the court's judicial review powers, which are seen as the only way to settle disputes about elections. Since free and fair elections are the foundation of a democracy, the court must step in to make sure that justice is done if elections are won unfairly.

The answer says that Article 368 only gives the Parliament the right to set broad principles for how the state's institutions work. The respondent's claim was based on the Kesvananda Bharti case from 1973. Articles 329 and 136 say that it is up to the courts to decide if a decision is legal or not. Because of this, the change mentioned above threatens the democratic structure of the country.

The Representation Of People (Amendment) Act, 1974 And The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 Being Constitutionally Valid

When the 39th Amendment was passed by the Indira Gandhi Government, most of the members of the Parliament were absent and arrested under Preventive detention. It was seen that this amendment destroyed separation of powers and judicial review which also are an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It destroyed the notion of equality whereas there isn't supposed to be differences between people holding high offices and people who are elected to the Parliament.

Since most of the opposition MP's were under preventive detention, they could not vote in the parliamentary proceedings and give their opinions regarding the amendment which benefited the Congress party. This was claimed by Raj Narain. However, the court said that this matter was related between both the Houses of Parliament was cannot be interfered upon by the judiciary.

CONCLUSION

The fight between Raj Narain and Indira Gandhi was greatly affected by John Dalberg's spreading of the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Even though she was very powerful, Indira Gandhi went crazy. She tried to keep it while using laws like Article 329A to weaken important constitutional values.

The idea of legislative supremacy came about as a way to give the legislative branch more power than the judicial branch. But the courts made sure that order was kept. In contrast to the US and UK constitutions, the Indian constitution strikes a balance between the power of the courts and the power of the legislature. Even though the court in the United States has more power than the legislature in the UK, the opposite is also true. Unlike past constitutions, the Indian constitution makes sure that the legislative and judicial branches work together well. Legislation can't change the most important parts of the constitution. The best way for the legislative and judicial branches to enforce the law in the best democracy in the world is to work together.

With the 39th Amendment, Indira tried to change the Constitution Act so that her election would be recognized. The Supreme Court made it clear that only courts can decide whether or not election results are correct. To keep the rule of law in place, the 39th amendment to the Constitution has been ruled invalid. The legislative branch does not have the power to deal with this issue.