Author: Kanak Vashisht, SGT University
Abstract
The Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case stands as a watershed moment in Indian constitutional and political history. Sparked by allegations of electoral malpractice against then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the case tested the very foundations of democracy, judicial independence, and constitutional supremacy. The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed the doctrine of basic structure, separation of powers, and the limits of parliamentary sovereignty. It not only reaffirmed judicial review but also played a crucial role in shaping India’s democratic ethos during the Emergency era.
To the Point
Case Citation: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)
Key Issues:
Can Parliament amend the Constitution to nullify a court’s verdict?
Does the right to free and fair elections form part of the basic structure of the Constitution?
Was the 39th Constitutional Amendment violative of the Constitution?
The Proof (Facts of the Case)
Background: Raj Narain, a political opponent, filed an election petition in the Allahabad High Court, alleging that Indira Gandhi had indulged in corrupt electoral practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
High Court Verdict: On June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractice — invalidating her election from the Rae Bareli constituency.
Emergency Declared: Within days, the Prime Minister advised the President to declare a National Emergency under Article 352 on June 25, 1975.
Constitutional Amendment: The government passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, inserting Article 329A, which placed the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond judicial scrutiny.
Legal Challenge: Indira Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s judgment, while the constitutional validity of the 39th Amendment was simultaneously questioned.
Use of Legal Jargon
Basic Structure Doctrine: A judicial principle that Parliament cannot alter the fundamental features of the Constitution.
Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments.
Electoral Malpractice: Violation of electoral laws, such as misuse of government machinery, bribery, or undue influence.
Prospective Overruling: A principle where the court decides that its ruling will apply only to future cases.
Constitutional Amendment: A change or addition to the Constitution made by Parliament under Article 368.
Case Laws Referred
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Held that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic features.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCR 933
Earlier upheld the power of Parliament to amend fundamental rights.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762
Held that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights — overruled later.
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 3 SCR 530
Strengthened the doctrine of judicial review and individual rights.
Supreme Court Verdict
The Supreme Court, by a majority opinion, struck down clause (4) of Article 329A (inserted by the 39th Amendment) as unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure.
Key Observations:
Justice H.R. Khanna: Declared that the free and fair elections are an essential feature of democracy, forming part of the basic structure.
Justice Y.V. Chandrachud: Emphasized that placing the PM’s election beyond judicial review is manifestly arbitrary and undermines democracy.
Held: Parliament cannot use its constituent power to validate what has been declared void by courts — that would subvert the rule of law.
Conclusion
The Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and preserved the basic structure doctrine as a bulwark against authoritarianism. The ruling underscored that constitutional amendments are not above judicial scrutiny, and Parliament cannot act as a super-judiciary. It remains a landmark precedent ensuring that electoral integrity, separation of powers, and rule of law are never sacrificed at the altar of political expediency.
FAQS
1. Why is this case important in Indian constitutional law?
This case cemented the basic structure doctrine, reminding Parliament that it cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its fundamental values like democracy and judicial review.
2. Did Indira Gandhi lose her position as Prime Minister after this?
Temporarily, yes. The Allahabad High Court disqualified her, but the 39th Amendment was rushed to protect her. The Supreme Court later struck that amendment down, restoring constitutional balance.
3. What was the 39th Amendment all about?
It inserted Article 329A, removing the PM’s election from the jurisdiction of courts — basically a move to protect Indira Gandhi from disqualification.
4. What is the “basic structure” of the Constitution?
It refers to the core principles like democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, etc., which cannot be altered even by a constitutional amendment.
5. How did this case impact Indian democracy?
It acted as a constitutional checkpoint, ensuring that emergency powers and amendments cannot override fundamental democratic values.
