Topic:- Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain.

Subject : logic

1
 INDEX

Sr. no. Topics Page no.

1 Introduction 3

2 Background of the case 4

3 Constitutional Validity of the Article 5

329-A
4 Arguments from both sides 6-7

5 Judgement 8

6 Analysis 9

7 Logical connection 10

8 The emergency imposed by Indira 11-12

Gandhi and it’s impact on India
9 Conclusion 13

10 Bibliography 14

2
Introduction:

Case No. : Appeal (civil) 887 of 1975 Petitioner:

Indira Nehru Gandhi.

Respondent: Shri Raj Narain & Anr

Date of Judgement: 7th November 1975

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

Statutes:

1. Article 368 in The Constitution of India, 1949.

2. Article 329(b) under The Constitution of India, 1949.

Raj Narain had contested the 1971 Indian General election against Indira
Gandhi who represented the constituency of Rae Bareilly in Lok Sabha. Indira
Gandhi was re-elected from Rae Bareilly by two-to-one margin of the popular
vote. Raj Narain did not accept the defeat and decided to appeal to nullify the
election, accusing Indira Gandhi of adopting corrupt practices during her
election campaigns. On 24th April 1971, he challenged the Prime Minister’s
election by filing a petition in the Allahabad High Court, putting allegations on
Indira Gandhi of violating the election code enshrined in the Representation of
the People Act of 1951 as her election campaigns were assisted by many
government officers which also included the armed forces and local police. He
also alleged that Indira Gandhi had used government vehicles for her election.
campaigning, and had distributed liquor and blankets amongst the voters to
influence them and had also exceeded the campaign expenses limit which was
Rs 35,000.

3
Background of the Case:

She fought her election from the Rae Bareilly Constituency and against her
contesting was Raj Narain, leader of Ram Manohar Lohia's SSP. Disappointed
with the defeat, he filed an appeal to nullify the election and accused Indira
Gandhi of using corrupt practices in the election campaign to claim victory. On
24th April 1971, he challenged the Prime Minister's election by filing a petition
in the Allahabad High Court and accused Gandhi of violating the election code
in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He expressed that her election
campaigns were assisted by many Government officials which were inclusive of
armed forces and local police. Apart from that, he alleged that Indira Gandhi has
used Government vehicles for her election campaigns, distributed liquor and
blankets to the voters to influence them to vote for her, exceeding the campaign
expenses. The Allahabad High court declared Indira Gandhi's election void on
the grounds of corrupt practices on 12th June 1975, the court, speaking under
Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha found Indira Gandhi guilty of misusing Government
machinery u/s- 123 of Representative of people's act, 1951.1

1Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case Analysis, Legal services India,

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2879-indira-gandhi-vs-raj-narain-case-analysis.html
4
What was the Constitutional Validity of Clause 4 of Article 329-A?

The Doctrine of Basic structure says that Parliament's unlimited power to

amend the Constitution is subject to restriction, which means it should not violate
the basic structure of the Constitution. Article 368 of the Constitution gives power
to the Parliament to revise the Constitution by expansion, variety, or annulment
of any provision as indicated by the procedure set down in that. It was expressed
that Clause of Article 329-A needs to be struck down as it violated the standard
of free and fair elections which is an integral part of the basic structure of the
Constitution.

The constitutional validity of Representation of the People (Amendment)

Act,1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act,1975 :

The 39th constitutional amendment was passed when several members of the
Parliament were not present as they were arrested under preventive detention.
Article 368 does not empower the parliament to take decisions in any dispute by
making constitutional amendments. Article 324A is said to be in the domain of
the judiciary and is not included under Article 368. The court found the matter to
be related between both the Houses of Parliament and that the court cannot
interfere in the matter and decide its constitutional validity. It was also noted that
the President did not authorize any detention under Article 352 and 359
respectively. In matters questioning constitutional validity, the statute depends
entirely on the existence of the legislative powers and the limitation laid down by
Article 13, there is no other prohibition and the Parliament had acted within the
powers of Article 368 when it framed the election laws. In addition to this, the
Parliament has the powers to restrict the limits on election expenses along with
stating which expenses can fall under the purview of the same and which cannot.2

2The Case that led to emergency, Blog ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/emergency-indira-gandhi-v-

rajnarain/
5
Arguments from both sides:

• Arguments by Petitioners

The Learned Attorney General contended-

The majority decision in the Kesavanand Bharti case is not an authority

here to decide if elections would be free and fair without judicial review.
Constitution of various countries leaves election disputes to the judgment
of the Legislature. Various articles even in our Constitution show judicial
review can be excluded in appropriate cases as a matter of policy. How
much of elections should be dealt with by Constitution and how much by
ordinary legislation is not a matter for courts to decide. If the constituent
body believes that the offices of the Prime Minister and Speaker are
important enough to be dealt with by the Parliament then it cannot be
decided as frivolous. Kesavananda Bharti and Shankari Prasad both did not
cover the ambit of electoral disputes, they rather dealt with the meaning of
the word ‘amendment’. Therefore, constituent power must be held as
plenary.Article 14 is founded on a sound public policy recognized by all
states. Exclusion of Judicial Review does not negate equality by itself. It
can be understood as Art 31-B, it denied equality on the face of it, but rather
brought economic progress and justice to the country. Exclusion of Judicial
Review is permissible anywhere the Constitution did not explicitly state or
contemplate judicial review. Rule of law is not a part of basic structure and
apart from Art. 14 our Constitution recognizes neither doctrine of equality
nor rule of law.3

3Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case summary, Law Times Journal, https://lawtimesjournal.in/indira-nehrugandhi-
v-raj-narain/
6
 • Arguments by Respondents

Shanti Bhushan, the counsel for Respondents argued the below mentioned:-
The 39th Amendment Act affects the Basic Structure or institutional pattern
of the Constitution. The Amendments also take away the power of jurisdiction
of the Courts. The state of our country observed separation of powers between
all the three organs of the Government. So, it would be unjust to the judiciary
if their powers to resolve are negated or taken away under any circumstance.
The function of the Legislature is to necessarily legislate. It can pass laws
but it cannot decide the constitutional validity of such laws and if the judiciary
finds otherwise, such laws will be stroked.

Free and fair elections are the key features of any Democracy. It is absolutely
important that if elections are maliciously won, the Judiciary intervenes to
provide justice. Article 14 of our Constitution also guarantees Equality before
Law and equal protection of the law. The President bypassing such law has
placed him and the other people above the law and which is not justified. Rule
of Law and Judicial Review are basic features of our Constitution, they cannot
be damaged or altered as held in The Fundamental Rights Case. Political
Justice is recognized by our Preamble, and it cannot be challenged under any
circumstance. Even with a 2/3rd majority, constituent power cannot exercise
executive/judicial power, which in this case it has tried to. Art. 368 does not
empower Parliament to amend Constitution to decide who wins and who loses
an election.4

4Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case summary, Law Times Journal, https://lawtimesjournal.in/indira-nehrugandhi-
v-raj-narain/
7
Judgment:

The court decided on November 7th, 1975. It would be pertinent to note

that this was the first case where the judgment made in the case of
Kesavananda Bharti was applied by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court has upheld the issues of the petitioner and had, in turn, declared the
disputed Clause 4 of Article 329A of the Constitution as unconstitutional.
The bench had also found the said amendment infringes the principles of
natural justice i.e. Audi Altrem Partem since. This amendment denies the
right of fair hearing to the person who is challenging the election of the
members mentioned under the amendment. Democracy is a basic feature
under the Indian Constitution. The Parliament is not vested with the power
to pass a retrospective law that allows them to validate an invalid election.
This act hence may be described as an act of tyrannical use of uncontrolled
and unregulated power. This amendment confers such determining 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.
Chief Justice Ray C.J. had stated that the said amendment had violated
a basic feature of the Constitution i.e. Rule of Law. Justice Khanna had
stated that clause (4) of Article 329A violates the principle of free and fair
elections which is a crucial part of democracy and which in its turn is a part
of the basic structure of the Constitution
Mathew J. had held that if by clause (4), any essential feature of the
democratic-republican structure of our polity as visualized by the
Constitution has been damaged or destroyed, the clause would be ultra
vires the Constitution. He opined that a democracy can only function
properly when there is the possibility of a contest of free & fair elections.
The disputed amendment destroyed that possibility and thus violating the
Basic feature of the Constitution. Chandrachud J. had found the said
amendment to be infringing of the principle of Separation of Power as it
transferred a judicial function into the hands of the legislature. He was also
certain that the said amendment also violated Article 14 of the Constitution
as it creates an unequal position for specific members against others.
Hence, due to many reasons, the court struck down the 39th (Amendment)

8
 Act, 1975 finding it unconstitutional as well as violating the Basic Structure
of the Constitution.5

Analysis:

It was evident that the three amendments were made to expel all grounds
on which Indira Gandhi was found guilty in the Allahabad High Court.
The Supreme Court in its judgment held that Amendment Acts 1974 and
1975, were intrinsically real as they were administrative standards and
the parliament had forced to update them, yet the Supreme Court failed
to notice that these amendments were made for the sole motive of
removing the charges against Indira Gandhi. Likewise, there were no
debates on these amendments because when these amendments were
made, many opposition leaders were under preventive detention due to
which they were not able to vote against it. The Supreme Court was
ignorant on its part to say that it was the matter of the Parliament and the
Supreme Court couldn’t deal with such issue.

It is the Supreme Court must safeguard the constitution, it is

considered as the watchdog of the constitution, and here the constitution
was being tampered unlawfully but the Supreme Court didn’t deal with the
matter saying it was out of its jurisdiction which was a sign of political
influence. It was because of these Amendment Acts, that Indira Gandhi
could easily getaway. The amendments took care of all the charges that
were put on her by the Allahabad High Court. I along these lines feel that
the Supreme Court was unmindful in managing this issue.

Indira Gandhi had abused her powers to adjust the very laws that
charged her of being corrupt and the Supreme Court stayed quiet, and when
Raj Narain argued for equity, all that Supreme Court could do was to give
him long superfluous reasoning of how the issue was out of its ward. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court was well aware of the fact that Indira Gandhi had
made the amendments to satisfy her political exigencies and had
unconventionally imposed an emergency to save herself from being proved
guilty. Yet, the Supreme Court upheld the constitution in some way as it

5 The Case that led to emergency, Blog ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/emergency-indira-gandhi-v-rajnarain/

9
 struck down clauses 4 and 5 of Article 329 being violative of the basic
structure.6

What is the Logical connection?

The part of the case is about article 329-A and how it had violated the
basic structure of the Constitution.
The article was struck down after the judgment of the case.
According to my, the logical connection here is Inference and Implication.
Here, All provisions violating the basic structure of the Constitution should
be declared unconstitutional. This premise draws the conclusion that article
329-A should be declared unconstitutional because it violated the basic
structure of the constitution.
It violated the right of citizens to free and fair elections.

6The Case that led to emergency, Blog ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/emergency-indira-gandhi-v-

rajnarain/
10
The Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi on India:
Emergency in India or on a global scale is not a new concept. In India, the
proclamation of emergency during the time of the Indira Gandhi Government
was a shock to other countries also. But no one could resist such situations as
there are clear provisions regarding implementing an emergency when there
arises such a situation in the country.

Types of Emergency:
To protect the nation and its people from any unusual situations which may
be likely to take place, Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution provides certain
provisions of implementing an emergency which is framed under Article 352 to
360 of the Constitution which are:
1. National emergency (Art.352) – Emergency due to war, external
aggression, and internal disturbances
2. State emergency (Art.356) – Emergency in the case of failure of
Constitutional machinery in the country.
3. Financial emergency (Art.360) – Emergency in the case of any financial
crises.
In India, there were certain internal disturbances due to the issues
regarding a case filed by Mr. Raj Narain, who was defeated by Indira Gandhi
in the Parliamentary elections claiming that the defendant had done an election
fraud and the PM was even cross-examined in the Court and was found guilty
of her acts. Indira Gandhi challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, but
the Court upheld the decision of the High Court and ordered her to stop all her
privileges as an MP and also debarred her from voting but conferred the right
to continue as the PM.
The next day, Jayaprakash Narayan, a popular leader, conducted a rally
in Delhi, and it resulted in various signs of inciting rebellion in the country. In
the light of certain events, Indira Gandhi, on a complaint to the President,
requested to issue a proclamation for state emergency in India. It resulted in
the deprivation of all the civil rights of the citizen to bring back national peace
and security

Impact of the Emergency:

11
 • Deprivation of fundamental rights to the citizen
• All possible bans on media
• Ruling out of certain other political parties
• Political revolutions inside the country
Now looking at the matters affecting the human rights of the people during
the time of emergency, it has to be stated that it was one of the most arbitrary
powers exercised by the Constitution as well as by the Government towards its
people. Constitution, a most sacred document of fundamental rights subverted
into the most ruthless manner possible. Many places in India faced situations
where military forces were assembled to stop people from forming groups and
talking about matters that were not personal. One of the major functions assigned
to the police and the military was to stop people from forming groups as well as
arrest persons who looked or behaved suspiciously. No media was allowed to
publish the news without censorship. All such instances resulted in the violation
of certain fundamental rights as well as a pure case of human rights violation.
Constitutional Provisions:

Article 352, 356, and 360 deal with provisions regarding the emergency. As
mentioned earlier, there are three types of emergency. The effect of proclamation
of emergency is clearly stated in Article 353 of the Constitution which reads as
The executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of directions to any
State as to how the executive power thereof to be exercised. The power of
Parliament includes the power to make laws conferring powers and imposing
duties, or conferring powers and duties upon the union and officers,
notwithstanding that it is not entitled to the Union list. Emergency not only gave
immense power to Indira Gandhi but also to her son Sanjay Gandhi. Provisions
under the 38th amendment dealt with barring the review of the proclamation of
emergency, judicial review of overlapping proclamation or promulgation by the
Governors, and of laws that contravened the Fundamental Rights. There were a
large number of protests and revolts in various parts of the country for winding
up the emergency as well as for the formation of a new Government. Sundar
Rajan was imprisoned during the time of emergency. He also stated that the
emergency was reflected as the darkest hour in the fifty years of freedom7

7 Impact of internal emergency on India, Blog ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/impact-internal-

emergencyindia/
12
 Conclusion:
The court proved that the Parliament is by Law and its not vice-versa.
Judiciary crushed the Parliament's course to establish supremacy and the
attempt to make itself above the Constitution. The Court did uphold the
essence of democracy i.e free and fair elections.

In the pith of the substance, the main aim of the Amendment was to
reverse the High Court's judgment that invalidated Indira Gandhi's election.
And instead of resigning, she imposed an emergency and passed the
draconian 39th Amendment Act,1975 which was struck down by the
Supreme Court. The case upheld both Rule of Law and Separation of
Power and made it clear that validation or invalidation of elections is
undoubtedly a judicial matter and cannot be interfered with by the
Legislature.8

The Court proved that Parliament cannot take the law into its own
hands and upheld democracy. Indira Gandhi's malicious attempts of putting
her Government's legislative powers above the Constitution came all
crashing down and the Fundamental Rights Case decision proved to be
accurate and precise to its core.
Emergency affected Indira Gandhi, as well as the Government under
her Governance badly but certain political strategies as well as plans and
actions, made her the Prime Minister again. The main slogan of the
Government was ‘Hatao Garibi’ which means eliminate poverty
throughout their period of Governance.

8Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case Analysis, Legal Services India,

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2879-indira-gandhi-vs-raj-narain-case-analysis.html
13
Bibliography:

Internet:
1. Indira Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain, Indiankanoon.
2. The Case that led to emergency, Blog ipleaders.
3. Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case analysis, Legal service India.
4. Impact of internal emergency on India, Blog ipleaders.
5. Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case summary, Law Times Journal.

14