Author: Dhanya Hegde, MKPM RV Institute of legal studies
ABSTRACT
This article is about one of the landmark cases in the Indian judicial system which is a precedent for many subsequent cases. There was an imposition of emergency as an after effect of the case. The election of Prime Minister was challenged in this case. The legislature acted outside the powers guaranteed to it under the constitution to have dominance. The legislature tried to curb the powers of the judiciary given under the constitution by bringing amendments to the constitution. The case dealt with the power of courts to interfere in the matters of election; rule of law; basic structure doctrine;separation of powers between legislature, judiciary and executive; judicial review power of judiciary.
INTRODUCTION
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain is a landmark case which was a turning point in the Indian political system. The judgement remarked on the powers of judiciary and judicial review, basic structure doctrine and helped in shaping the political structure in democratic India. As a consequence of the case and its judgement there was an imposition of emergency from 1975 to 1977.
Case name: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Citation: 1975 AIR 865
Judges: CJ A N Ray, J. HR Khanna, J. KK Mathew, J. YV Chandrachud and J. MH Beg.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the year 1971, there was a 5th lok sabha general election in India being conducted. There were two contenders from Rai Bareli constituency with tough competition among them. Indira Nehru Gandhi contested from INC party and Raj Narain contested from SSP party. After the results of the election were announced, Indira Nehru Gandhi won the election with 352 seats out of 518 seats. Her strongest contender was very confident that he had organised the victory rally even before the results were declared. When the results were declared which did not turn in his favour, Raj Narain decided to make the results nullified by challenging the election of that constituency in the court of law.
PETITION BEFORE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
In order to raise voice against the election won by Indira Nehru Gandhi, Raj Narain filed a petition before Allahabad High Court on 24th April 1971 about the malpractices in the election. He claimed that Indira Nehru Gandhi violated the provisions of Representation of people’s Act, 1951. He also made allegations that the government vehicles were being used for election campaigning. To influence the voters money, liquor and blankets were being distributed, due to which the maximum limit that can be used for election campaigning(₹35,000) was also exceeded by Indira Nehru Gandhi.
DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT
The trial court judge held Indira Nehru Gandhi guilty of all the accusations against her. The court declared the election null and void. She was held guilty of using government resources for election campaigning which is a violation of Section 123(7) of Representation of People’s Act, 1951. She was barred from contesting the prime minister’s election for a period of six years.
Aggrieved by the judgement of the trial court Indira Nehru Gandhi filed an appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At that time the Hon’ble Supreme Court was on vacation and a stay was granted to the decision of the High court.
President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declared a state of emergency, citing internal disturbance, but the underlying reason was the Allahabad High Court’s ruling on the election case.
39th CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
When the appeal was pending in the Supreme Court filed by Indira Nehru Gandhi, there was an amendment brought to the constitution. The 39th constitutional amendment which is also known as Election Laws (Amendment) Act,1975 was passed by the president. Article 329-A was introduced through this amendment. Article 329-A provided that the election of prime minister and speaker cannot be challenged in the court. It can be dealt with only by the committee formed by the parliament for that reason. The amendment was given retrospective effect.
The constitutional validity of Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act,1974 was questioned. The 39th constitutional amendment was challenged by Raj Narain arguing that it was unconstitutional.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES AND JUDGEMENT
VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION OF INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI.
It was held by the honorable supreme court that according to Section 123(7) of Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act,1975 once a person files his nomination papers he will be recognised as a candidate. Indira Nehru Gandhi filed her nomination on 1/2/1971. Therefore any assistance taken from government officers before filing nomination papers cannot be considered as corrupt practice.
Raj Narain had also made allegations that Indira Nehru Gandhi was assisted by Yashpal Kapoor who was a gazette officer of India. There was enough evidence to prove that he had given his resignation before being appointed as an agent of Indira Nehru Gandhi. But no evidence was found supporting the claim of Raj Narain arguing that Yashpal Kapoor had given multiple speeches supporting Indira Nehru Gandhi before his resignation. Also the court held that the personal expenses incurred during the election cannot be regarded as election expenses of the party. The court rejected the claim of Raj Narain where he accused her of exceeding the expense limit during the election.
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE’S (AMENDMENT) ACT,1975 AND ELECTION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT,1975.
Through Amendment Article 329-A was introduced, the ninth schedule was inserted in Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election laws(amendment) Act, 1975. Article 329A had six clauses but the dispute raised was for clause 4,5 and 6.
Article 329A (4) declared that the elections of the Prime Minister was outside the ambit of judicial review, and the courts cannot decide on the validity of election of prime minister and speaker.
Article 329(A) (5) declared that any appeal in this matter shall be declared as null and void and the result of elections shall be declared final.
Article 329(A) (6) declared that Article 329A shall have predominance or precedence over the rest of the entire constitution.
All these amendments were done according to the provision given under Article 368 of the constitution which empowers the parliament to amend the constitution as per the procedure specified in this Article.
While deciding, the Supreme court upheld the validity of Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election laws(amendment) Act, 1975, by referring to Article 122 which restricts the court from interfering in the proceedings of the parliament.
While deciding the constitutionality of Article 329A(4) the court stated the unreasonable discrimination made between the ‘person who holds the office’ and the other ‘persons who are elected to be members of parliament’. It is a clear violation of Article 14 of the constitution which is based on the principle of equality. Referring to the landmark judgment Kesavananda Bharati Case, in which the basic structure doctrine was established, the court held that through insertion of Article 329A(4) the doctrine of basic structure doctrine has been violated. The court identified that judicial review, rule of law are part of basic structure doctrine which was being violated. The court held Article 329A(4) unconstitutional and inconsistent with fundamental rights provided under the Indian constitution.
VII. CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that the judgement was a brave one and the judiciary has played a vital role in upholding the supremacy of the constitution. The election of prime minister and the malpractices that occurred during the time of election was challenged in this case in the trial court. When the appeal was pending in the Supreme court, the parliament brought amendments to the constitution which curbs the powers of the court to look into the matter of election of prime minister. There was a proclamation of national emergency during this time. This judgement redefined the supremacy of the constitution, by upholding the fundamental rights provided under the constitution and basic structure doctrine. Judiciary acts as a watchdog against the malafide actions of the state
VIII. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
When can the President proclaim Nation emergency?
Article 352 of the Indian Constitution states that circumstances when the president can proclaim a national emergency. A president can claim national emergency only if the security of India or any part of its territory is threatened by war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. The President must obtain a written recommendation from the Cabinet before declaring a national emergency. Internal aggression cannot be a valid reason for proclamation of national emergency.
What is the basic structure doctrine that was listed in Keshavananda Bharathi case?
The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, asserts that certain fundamental features of the Indian Constitution are so crucial that they cannot be altered by Parliament, even through constitutional amendments. The supreme court listed several basic structure doctrine in this case which are :
Supremacy of the Constitution
Unity and sovereignty of India
Democratic and republican form of government
Federal character of the Constitution
Secular character of the Constitution
Separation of power
Individual freedom
