Author: Pushpa Prasad, Faculty of law,Delhi University.
INTRODUCTION
The book authored by advocate Prashant Bhushan, “The Case that Shook India” which give the details of the case which came up in 1975 due the after the elections of 1971 Lok Sabha
The conflict between Indira Gandhi and Raj Narain in 1975 centred around allegations of electoral malpractice.Raj Narain challenged Indira Gandhi’s election to the Lok Sabha, claiming she had violated election laws. In June 1975 the Allahabad High Court ruled in favour of Raj Narain, declaring her election void.
In response to the court’s Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency on June 25, 1975, citing national security threats. This allowed her to suspend civil liberties and rule by decree, leading to widespread arrests of political opponents. The emergency lasted until March 1977 and is often viewed as a dark period in Indian democracy. When elections were eventually held, Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party faced significant defeat, making a pivotal moment in Indian Politics and symbolising the struggle against authoritarianism.
The case is landmark in context with the Indian Constitution as it touched many aspects of the basic structure of preamble which was discussed in the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) the separation of powers, the conduct of free and fair elections and the important concept of judicial review. This case had a great impact on the political system when the matter was heard. The whole country was facing a National Emergency where illegal detention without any reasonable ground violated the basic concept of Article 20 of the Constitution.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Lok Sabha General Election in India, 1971 Indira Gandhi and Raj Narain from Rae Bareli constituency, Raj Narain as he did not approve the election result which declared Indira Gandhi victory in the election with 352 Lok Sabha seats out of 518. Raj Narain filed the petition before the High Court of Allahabad on 24 th April, 1971, on the grounds the election conducted by Indira Nehru Gandhi violated the mode of conduct of election as per the provisions of the Representation of People’s Act 1951. Further government resources were used for the election purpose. It even concluded that she gave money, liquor and blankets for influencing people to cast a vote in her favour.
Allahabad High Court declared Indira Gandhi to be guilty of the allegations raised by Raj Narain. The High Court held guilty under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People’s Act 1951, the High Court barred from contesting in elections of Prime Minister for the period of six years. Aggrieved with the decision of the High Court the respondent appealed to the Supreme Court but the court was on vacation and the court granted stay on the High Court decision. The then President Fakhrudeen Ali Ahmed announced an emergency on grounds of internal disturbance. However, this act was the reflection of the High Court decision.
During emergency the parliament introduced 39th Constitutional amendment which introduced section 329-A in the Indian Constitution which stated that the election of the speaker and the Prime Minister shall not be questioned in the court of law the special committee formed by the parliament will look into the election disputes. It directly tried to restrict the judiciary from election matters and Raj Narain challenged the amendment by helding it to be unconstitutional.
ISSUSED RAISED IN FRONT OF SUPREME COURT
Whether the election of Lok Sabha of 1971 was valid ?
What is the constitutional validity of the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act 1974 , and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act 1975?
Whether clause (4) of the Article 329-A is unconstitutional?
ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANT
The attorney general contended that the election dispute should be handled by the legislature and not by judiciary and pointing that judiciary cannot exercise powers which are vested in others organs of the government and political question should not be dealt with judiciary as no constitutional provision present in this matter so it is outside the purview of the courts.
The relevant provision of Article 329-A which was added in 39 th Amendment Act which leaves the court with no power to act in election disputes. The clauses of Article 329-A states
Clause 1 of the article states no election dispute of the speaker and prime minister can be questioned except by the authority appointed by the parliament.
Clause 2 decision of the authority of the parliament cannot be questioned in the court of law
Clause 3 Any election petition pending against a person after holding the position of the Prime Minister or any member of Lok Sabha shall be abated.
Clause 4 the law made by Parliament before the 39th Constitutional Amendment 1975 which relates to elections petitions or in relation to elections shall not be void and it shall remain valid even after the commencement of the Amendment.
The appellant contended that the appellant was nominated as candidate of RaeBareli on 1st February 1971 and the High Court of Allahabad which found the Yashpal Kapur guilty as being officer of the government helping a nominated person in election but as per the instructions of Indira Gandhi January 7 1971 , and January 19 1971 cannot be sustained as the appellant was not a nominated candidate at that time.
It also contended that the decision of constituent authority to restrict the power of judiciary should be treated as special power; it was taken due to the adverse condition of the country, it was a requirement of the time to have the Prime Minister in office.
Article 14 exclusion of judicial review is not negation of equality as Article 33 of Indian Constitution gives power to Parliament to modify the right present in the Constitution. And they stated that the 39th Constitutional Amendment is valid.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
The first argument was that the Election Laws (Amendment) Act of 1975 and the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act of 1974 both broke the fundamental constitutional principle of judicial review. The 39th Amendment Act questions the fundamental framework of the constitution, which was established in the seminal ruling in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru vs. State of Kerala (1973), which declared that Parliament was not permitted to change the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
By restricting the power of the judiciary the democratic power of the judiciary of making decisions on election disputes is violated. It is a matter of judicial determination as per Article 329 and Article 136 of the Constitution which have been destroyed.
The act also violates Article 14 principle on equality as the act provides unreasonable classification amongst the people holding higher and lower positions elected in the Parliament.
The Amendment Act of 1975 obliterates the idea of a free and fair election by failing to penalize candidates who engage in corrupt activities prior to being nominated for office. Clause 4 of Article 329-A restricts the authority of judicial review by limiting its ability to handle election-related concerns. By limiting the Court’s authority and denying people a chance to be heard, this amendment undermines the fundamental principles of the Constitution and goes beyond Parliament’s modifying authority granted by Article 368.
It was submitted by helding 39th Amendment as irrational and hold no value as it violates the basic structure of the Constitution affecting the rule of law and the separation of powers.
CASE LAWS INVOLVED IN INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI vs SHRI RAJ NARAIN & Anr 1975
A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras 1950
The Supreme Court stated that individuals can be detained if they are considered a threat to national security upholding the Preventive Detention Act 1950 of the individual being detained without conducting the trial, it stated that the Act has no relation between Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
The case overturned the ruling in I.C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (1967), which found that parliament has the authority to change the fundamental framework of the Constitution. In order to undermine the Constitution’s fundamental structures—constitutional supremacy, secularism, federal structure, judicial review, separation of powers, etc.—the basic structure theory suggests that the Legislature cannot alter specific provisions of the document.
JUDGEMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE
Article 329-A was declared invalid and illegal by the Supreme Court. In other cases, Indira Gandhi’s election was deemed legitimate, and she was permitted to remain India’s prime minister since there was insufficient proof of the malpractices. The court dismissed Shri Raj Narain’s contention that Indira Nehru Gandhi had gone over her spending limit since her personal costs were not allowed to be taken into account. There is no concrete proof to support the assertion that Yashpal Kapur, a government official, quit his job on January 13, 1971, and ceased to be a government official. Kapur resigned subsequently, after becoming an electoral agent. The Allahabad High Court’s ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court.
FAQS
1. How the landmark case Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain shaped the Indian Political System?
This case significantly shaped the political history of India in several ways :
The case underscored the role of the judiciary in upholding democratic principles and electoral integrity. The Allahabad High Court’s decision set a precedent for judicial intervention in political matters, reinforcing the importance of an independent judiciary in a democracy. After the decision national emergency was imposed which made many citizens becoming more politically active and critics of government actions, which contributed to the rise of opposition parties.The one amongst the opposition party was Janta Party it was a coalition of opposition groups and which formed a government for the first time in history of Indian politics non – congress party was ruling the government which marked the democracy of India.
This case led to many changes in electoral laws and practices in subsequent years. The case and its aftermath inspired a generation of political activities and leaders to emerge in the later eighties and nineties.
The case not only highlighted the fragility of democracy in India but also catalysed significant political changes that shaped the future of the country’s governance and civil rights.
2.What is separation of powers? How is it implemented in countries like India ?
The doctrine of separation was given by Montesquieu, a French Judge. It describes how the three fronts of the country’s powers are different for the smooth functioning of the country. The three layers the legislative which make laws, executive which execute the laws made by the legislative and most time it is seen these two powers unite and perform their act which leads in malicious practice, to keep on check the legislative and the executive the judiciary takes it stage which see and acts as a guardian of the Indian Constitution an sees if there is violation of the Constitution and citizens rights. Article 50 of the Indian Constitution deals with the division of the powers and the main objective of this doctrine is to prevent the abuse between the legislative, executive and judiciary.
CONCLUSION
The case of Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain(1975) laid down an important precedent by the Supreme Court: it upholds the doctrine of basic structure and states the powers of Parliament is not absolute any violation by the legislative in the context of violation of the Indian Constitution. The Powers of Judicial Review come into being to check the act of Parliament.
The Court upheld the supremacy of the Constitution and laid down the Constitution as above all laws and judiciary is the protector and guarantor of the Constitution.
This case analyses the conduct of elections as citizens of the country cast their vote for their representative and the foremost thing they should do is conduct a free and fair election. The allegation to the 1972 election that there were malpractices conducted in the election procedure which violate the principles of the election. The sudden introduction of 39 th Constitutional Amendment, 1975 by the government during the time of emergency, which led to addition of Article 329-A the act of the government was arbitrary in nature the court held it to be unconstitutional.
During the emergency there was curtailment of the fundamental rights which are present in the Constitution and there was numerous illegal detention of the leaders who were against the Parliament. The period of emergency is referred to as the dark phase of Indian history. It can be concluded that the judiciary played a great role in upholding the supremacy of the powers. The separation of powers does not allow the Parliament to take decisions alone and take decisions which are against the Constitution and it should abide with the rule of law.
