Case Analysis: Indira Nehru Gandhi vs.

Raj Narain

Introduction
Indira Gandhi vs. raj Narain was the landmark case that created history and created path to
the imposition of Emergency in India from 1975 to 1977. it's the case that questioned the
powers of the judiciary, a showcase of how Parliament expected the judiciary to kneel down
before them. Parliament tried to determine its mastery within the course of this case but place
in situ by the judiciary.

This case questioned many integral aspects of the Constitution like its Basic structure, power
of jurisdiction of courts, separation of 3 organs of the state that are: Legislative, executive
and judiciary, functions of legislative organs, right to free and honest elections, rule of law
and review and finally, political justice.

The hearing of the case in the Supreme court occurred throughout the emergency during that
the fundamental rights were suspended and press censorship was implemented, because of
that there have been no public hearing or potential coverage of the case. The case was a large
impact on Indian politics.

Background of the Case

Raj Narain was the political challenger against Mrs. Gandhi for Rae Bareilly's seat in 1971
Lok Sabha General Elections. Mrs. Gandhi won the election & congress won the house with
a sweeping majority. However, once the results of the polls, Raj Narain filed a petition before
the judicature of Allahabad contending that Mrs. Gandhi has performed Election
malpractices. On twelve June 1975, the judicature of Allahabad speaking underneath Justice
Jagmohanlal Sinha found Mrs. Gandhi guilty of using government machinery illegaly u/s-
123(7) of Representative of Peoples Act, 1951. 1 Therefore, the court stated that Mrs. Gandhi
cannot continue to the post of Prime Minister of India, further, she cannot contest elections
for the next six years. Aggrieved by this call Indira Nehru Gandhi visited appeal this ruling of
Allahabad judicature within the Supreme Court. However, SC being on vacation granted a
conditional stay execution on twenty-four June 1975.

Thereafter, a state of emergency was declared by the then-president giving the reason of
internal disturbance in the country. However, the important reason that created the path for
the emergency was the judgment, given by the court in Raj Narain v. Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court whereas granting conditional stay ordered the parties to look before it on
eleven August 1975 but on ten August 1975 the President of the emergency – stricken India
made thirty-nine Amendment in its constitution and inserted Article 329-A to altogether bar
1
Raj Narain v. Uttar Pradesh 1975 A.I.R. 865.
the jurisdiction of Supreme Court from entertaining the matter. This amendment made the
elections of President, Prime Minister, Vice-President, and the Speaker of Lok Sabha
unjustifiable and out of the jurisdiction of the courts. Therefore, this thirty-nine amendment
was challenged within the Supreme Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain.2

Respondents Arguments
1. The respondent made the point that the amendment violates the basic features of the
Constitution. The respondent relied on 7 judge bench decision in the case of Kesavananda
Bharti v. the State of Kerala.

2. The respondents submitted that the Parliament under Article 368 is only competent to
make general principles for the different organs of the state.

3. Since the determination is valid or not is a judicial prerogative under Article 329 & 136
respectively, the impugned amendment tends to take away the democratic structure of the
nation.

4. The amendment is illegal because while passing this, numerous opposition M.P.s were
illegally detained under the detention laws.

5. The 39th constitutional Amendment doesn’t pass the classification test. This amendment
also violates Article 14 of the constitution.

6. The said amendment not only destroys a basic structure, but it also endangers the rule of
law & separation of power.

Judgment
The court passed its decision on seven November 1975. This case was the initial case when
the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharti was taken into account by the apex court. The
apex court has declared the Clause 4 of Article 329A as void and unconstitutional.

In the words of Mathew J., this clause disturbs the democratic feature of the Constitution. It
was his opinion that a healthy democracy can flourish when there is a possibility of free and
fair elections. This amendment has destroyed that possibility because it violates the basic
feature of the Constitution.

Chandrachud J. said that the amendment violates the principle of Separation of Power since it
has transferred the purely judicial function into the hands of the government. Further, he
stated that the amendment also violates Article 14 as it creates an unequal position for
specific members against others.

2
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2299.
Ray C.J. said that it also violates the rule of law whereas Justice Khanna found that. It
violates the norms and conditions of free and fair elections. The bench also found the
amendment violates the principles of natural justice since it denies the right of fair hearing.
Democracy is the pillar of the Indian Constitution. The amending body i.e. Parliament is not
empowered to pass an ex-post-facto law validating an invalid election. This sets an example
of the dictatorial use of unrestrained and unfettered power.

The amendment tries to transfer such dictatorial powers to the Parliament. However, a
legislative body cannot find adjudicative facts like a judicial body therefore, in the opinion of
the bench the impugned amendment is the nail in the coffin of democracy.

Therefore, on the varied reasons the court struck down the 39 (Amendment) Act, 1975
finding it unconstitutional and violative of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Critical Analysis of the case

This decision is one of the biggest decisions ever taken by the Indian judiciary. It showed the
parliament its place in the constitution. The Parliament was taught that they are not alone in
this democracy and that the Judiciary is there to uphold the Constitution and save Democracy
from harmful actions of Parliament. The court in this case upheld the principle of Separation
of Power which builds checks and balances in the democracy to check that there is no sort of
encroachment and overstepping. The Government passed the 39th constitutional amendment
just to stay safe from the decision of Allahabad High Court. It was of the view that during
the emergency period, the judiciary will also go down and leaves its duty to uphold the
Constitution. However, the Judiciary resolved the crisis and struck down the draconian
amendment passed to validate an invalid election.

The court proved that Parliament is by law and not it’s vice versa. Parliament’s attempt to
make itself over the constitution was struck down by the Judiciary. The court upheld the Free
and Fair election. The court at various points quoted the importance of the Free and Fair
election. It held that without a system where the people cannot elect their representatives
through a free and fair contest of elections is surely not a system of democracy. By making
this amendment the government tried to make the election of PM, President, Vice President,
and Speaker of Lok Sabha unjustifiable and out of the jurisdiction of the judiciary, which is
totally against the democracy. The amendment tried to make the election of most important
posts unjustifiable i.e. no matter how much illegitimate their election, no-one can challenge
it: that too in a democracy. The court, however, shed water on the government's malicious
amendment and made Rule of Law emerge triumphantly.
Conclusion
This judgment of the Supreme Court was the initial within which the fundamental doctrine
was applied to prevent the constitution from malicious attacks. The five judges’ bench by
holding the impugned 39 proved to the parliament that they're just elected to form laws that
are beneficial to the “people of India” & not those laws which aren't beneficial for them. This
judgment was the triumph of Rule of Law because once more it had been the law that proved
to win and not those that make it. The apex court proved that law is at the top and no one can
change its status, not even the chosen ones.

India is the largest democracy in the world. The essence of a democratic government lies
within the conduct of free & fair elections. The parliament tried to bend this basic feature in
their favor in order to validate an invalid election. Besides, what's the meaning of Democracy
i.e. for the people, by the people & of the people if there are not any free & fair elections?
The amendment privileged the particular members’ elections being challenged within the
court which is like stripping an individual of his right to remedy.

The court proved that Parliament is by law and it cannot take law in its own hands.
Parliament’s recent course to determine its supremacy was ruined by the Judiciary. The court
upheld the essence of democracy i.e. free & fair election. Indira Gandhi’s malicious attempts
to place her Govt.’s legislative power above the Constitution went into the drain and
therefore the Fundamental Rights Case decision once more proved to be accurate and precise
to its core.