“BEYOND THE BALLOT: THE CASE THAT SHAPED INDIAN DEMOCRACY”

Author: Rusheetulya Subramanyam, a student at ICFAI LAW School, Hyderabad

ABSTRACT

The case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain has indeed been one of the most important moments in the historiography of law and politics in India. Electoral integrity, principles of the constitution, and wielding political power came into the liveliest contrast in this case. What had begun as an electoral challenge growing out of the turgid Lok Sabha elections of 1971 extended its horizons at once to include a much wider discourse over judicial accountability and democratic values. The case challenged several Constitutional aspects and witnessed many significant firsts. It was the first time ever after independence that the election of the Prime Minister was declared void.

The nullification of Indira Gandhi’s election by the Allahabad High Court triggered changes in the Constitution and permanently altered the political scenario in the country. It is probably the most vital point in the democratic journey of the country. The article dwells on the multi-dimensional aspects of the case: from legal arguments, through subsequent amendments to the Constitution, to far-reaching implications on the balance of powers within the Indian polity. It is not meant for the reader just as a legal case. It invites him to consider its prolonged significance in shaping the outlines of democratic governance in India.

INTRODUCTION

Case title: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain & Anr (1975) 2 SCC 159

Date of Judgement: 7th November 1975

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Type: Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975

Bench: A.N. Ray (CJ), H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud   

Indira Gandhi became the former Prime Minister of India who secured victory for herself and her Party Congress in the fifth Lok Sabha General Elections held in India in 1971. She got 352 of the 518 seats. However, she was not done celebrating her success wave of accusations against her for having been unfair and corrupt in indulging in elections soon surged into the political arena. Shri Raj Narain, one of the leaders of Ram Manohar Lohia’s SSP, had gone against Indira Gandhi in the Rae Bareilly elections in Uttar Pradesh. He was extremely confident of winning the elections. He even went so far as to plan a victory rally before the results were announced. Yet, after the election results were announced, he was very disappointed and just did not want to consider himself defeated. This disappointment became a caused for Raj Narain to file an appeal against the election nullification due to Mrs. Gandhi’s corrupt practices employed during her election efforts. On 24th April 1971, He filed petitions in Allahabad High Court challenging the elections of Prime Ministers and indicted Indira Gandhi for violating the electoral code prescribed in the Representation of People Act, 1951 for using government officers, army personnel, and local police to aid her in the election campaign. Indira Gandhi also used some of the government vehicles for campaigning drunk liquor and blanketed voting influences and also paid more than Rs 35,000 limits to the campaign expenses. The Allahabad High Court decided, after hearing both sides, to declare the election of PM Indira Gandhi void. Finding Indira Gandhi guilty under Section 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1971, the Court declared. As a result, the High Court dismissed her appeal and she was not only disqualified from holding the post but also banned for six years from contesting elections. The court granted twenty days to the Congress party to appoint a new Prime Minister in place of Indira Gandhi. Indira Gandhi was not satisfied with the rulings from the High Court and moved to the Supreme Court of India to challenge the judgment. At that time, the Supreme Court was on recess, and during such time the court had put an injunction first temporarily staying the order of the High Court till further proceedings. This order permitted Mrs. Gandhi to attend the parliamentary sessions but not to participate in debates or voting in the Lok Sabha. A few days before the Supreme Court proceedings were ongoing, then head of state Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed proclaimed a National Emergency because of internal disturbance. During this, the 39th Amendment of the Constitution was brought in, which introduced Article 329A into the Constitution. Thus, it is stated that elections to the Prime Minister and to the Speaker cannot be challenged in any court in India. This would essentially take away the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the Indira Gandhi case. This led to the constitutional validity of the 39th Amendment being challenged later because of this.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT CASE

  1. Whether Article 329(4) of the Indian Constitution is valid or not?
  2. Whether Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 constitutionally valid?
  3. Whether Indira Gandhi’s election is valid or not?

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

The Advocate states that the 39th Amendment has been the perverse alteration of the Constitution and has taken away the power of the Court from discussing any election-related matter.  The aforementioned ones assert that such acts lessen the judiciary, and exercise an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution on principle equality, which guarantees equality before the law, because it makes some people higher than the law. The amendment was contrary to basic fundamental principles in that it kept the President and others above the law. The amendment was also passed against a proper majority in Parliament and Parliament does not have any power to vote on an election result through constitutional amendments. It is said that cases in the past like Kesavananda Bharti and Shankari Prasad, regarding constitutional amendments, have all not dealt with these types of issues. They emphasized that judicial review is an important ingredient that should not be selectively removed from certain cases for elections.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

The Respondent contended that the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati must neither serve as a precedent nor determine the fairness of elections. They quoted the fact that many countries leave election-related disputes for a resolution to the legislature and not to the judiciary. Similar provisions for exclusion of judicial review exist in our Constitution also. They also stated that case precedents have not needed to extend to electoral disputes, as they confined themselves to the meaning of “Amendment” alone. And lastly, it is a claim, that the rule of law is neither a basic part of the Constitution nor any recognition, at least in Article 14, of this doctrine of equality or rule of law.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court of India invalidated provision Clause (4) of Article 329A under the Constitution as per the verdict given in Kesavananda Bharati Vs. Union of India. This clause was inserted by the Thirty-ninth Amendment Act to secure election results from the reach of judicial review which the Court considered to have a problem. The Court held that the Parliament cannot so amend the Constitution as to interfere with its basic structure. That is because such an interference would contravene the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and a fair hearing which form part of this great principle known as Basic Structure. Article 329A was contrary to these fundamental principles, as it made bad distinctions and also clogged the way to challenging an election result. Therefore, the Court found Article 329A clause (4) unconstitutional for violating core constitutional values. In fact, in this case, Raj Narain challenged the constitutionality of the Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, as well as the invalidity of their enactment. It is stated that these acts were passed without the consent of the majority of the house. Many parliamentarians were held in the Preventive Detention Act at that time, which led to their absence from the parliament during that period, causing a path to improper debate and voting on amendments. Therefore, such acts should be declared illegal. But the court dismissed the challenge stating that such matters are internal matters of Parliament and have no connection with the case. The Court held that Parliament has powers to make any laws, including the laws regarding elections, as per Article 368 of the Constitution. Lastly, Article 122 puts a limit on judicial scrutiny over parliamentary proceedings. Hence, the court decided to uphold the constitutional validity of the amendments while considering that Parliament did exercise its constitutional power despite the procedural points raised. The election of Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister was also a matter for the courts. The Supreme Court upheld the election of Indira Gandhi as a prime minister. There was no evidence against her as such about corruption with respect to the election and her personal election expenses could not go against the limits imposed on a party. Also, Yashpal Kapur held that he had resigned from the government service before assisting Gandhi not to be involved in dishonest practices. The Supreme Court set aside the earlier judgment passed by Allahabad High Court, which disqualified Mrs. Gandhi from contesting elections and asked her to resign and allowed her to continue as Prime Minister of India.

COURT’S VERDICT

The Supreme Court of India invalidated the constitutionality of Article 329A(4) due to its violating character of the basic structure of the Constitution as enshrined by the Keshavananda Bharati Case.  However, the constitutionality of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 was validated by the court. The Court additionally affirmed the validity of Indira Gandhi’s election by overruling the Allahabad High Court’s decision and allowed Indira Gandhi to continue as the Prime Minister of India. This verdict reinforced the importance of the basic structure doctrine while validating legislative changes and Indira Gandhi’s electoral legitimacy. 

CONCLUSION

The case brought into focus the ongoing tension between legislature and judiciary in India with respect to the Constitutional amendment and protection of democratic principles. The Supreme Court’s decision to ratify Indira Gandhi’s status as Prime Minister was indeed controversial and subject to allegations of political abuse. It brought to the fore the power of the judiciary and reiterated “No authority is above Law and Our Constitution is supreme”. It underlined the importance of democracy and institutions, as well as free and fair elections. India would remain a democracy as long as the elections are fair and justice is transparent. Parliament could never arm-twist the judiciary, however empowered it might be. This case essentially is a generalized phenomenon of the judiciary guarding up constitutional principles amid the political turmoil.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What role did the emergency play in this case?

The case and its proceedings occurred during the Emergency period, a time when democratic norms were suspended. Critics argue that holding court proceedings during this time was against the principles of law and justice.  

  1. What role did public opinion play during and after the case?

Public opinion was polarized during the case, with some supporting Indira Gandhi’s leadership while others criticized her actions as authoritarian. After the Emergency, the backlash from the electorate demonstrated the importance of public opinion in a democracy and its ability to hold leaders accountable for their actions.

  1. What role did the dissenting voice play during this period?

Despite the suppression of opposition during the Emergency, dissenting voices within political circles, academia, and civil society criticized the actions taken by Indira Gandhi and the judiciary. These dissenting voices helped keep the ideals of democracy alive and contributed to the eventual restoration of normalcy after the Emergency.

  1. What lessons did Indian democracy learn from this case?

Indian democracy learned the importance of preserving checks and balances and the need for judicial independence to protect constitutional values. The case also highlighted the dangers of concentrated power and the critical role of public opinion in holding leaders accountable.

  1. What role did the basic structure doctrine play in this case?

The basic structure doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, was indirectly reinforced during this case. The court’s decision to strike down Article 329A clause (4) highlighted that constitutional amendments cannot undermine fundamental principles such as judicial review and democratic accountability.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *