INDIRA GANDHI VS RAJ NARAIN

Constitution: Case Study Based Project

ANMOL ARORA TUSHAR SINGH NIKHIL BHATT Sarthak Bansal Sarthak Mishra
19102110 TOMAR 19102091 19102090 19102115
19102093

A4

Submitted to:

Professor Praveen Kumar Sharma

Department OF Humanities and Social Sciences
TITLE”
INDIRA GANDHI VS RAJ NARAIN

Introduction”
Raj Narain’s case in comparison to then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi continues to be one of the most historic and
momentous decisions in Indian history and led to the imposition of emergencies in India from 1975 to 1977. a show that
Parliament expected the judiciary to kneel before them. Parliament has tried to determine the magnitude of the case but has been
replaced by law enforcement. The case posed a number of important questions to the Constitution such as its basic structure,
judicial powers, the division of the three spheres of government namely: Legal, administrative and judicial, legislative functions,
the right to free and fair elections, the rule of law and the final review, political justice.
It was a crucial moment in Indian history that the election of a prime minister was set aside. This case has strongly affected
the teaching of the Constitutional Framework, which said it would not be amended a few years ago before the crucial trial of
Kesavananda Bharati vs Union of India (1973). The trial in the Supreme Court took place during an emergency where basic rights
were suspended and the media was forced into account, because there had never been a public hearing or case reporting. The case
has had a profound effect on Indian politics.

Background”
The whole issue focused on the national elections held in India until the 5th convention in 1971, when Indira Gandhi
campaigned heavily for himself and his party and guided the ANC out of victory by winning 352 seats out of 518 seats in the said
election. Raj Narain, the SSP leader of Ram Manohar Lohia stood against Indira Gandhi in the Rae Bareilly election in Uttar
Pradesh. Raj Narain was so confident of his victory in the election, he tried to go so far as to take the victory meeting before the
results were announced. Raj Narain was deeply disappointed when he lost the election by a landslide. Raj Narain did not accept
defeat and decided to file a petition to cancel the election, accusing Indira Gandhi of accepting corrupt practices during his
election campaigns. On April 24, 1971, he challenged the Prime Minister's election by filing an application with the Supreme
Court of Allahabad, alleging that Indira Gandhi had violated the election code set out in the 1951 Representation of the People Act
as his election campaign was widely used. government officials associated with the armed forces and the local police. He also
alleged that Indira Gandhi used government vehicles in his election campaign, and distributed alcohol and bedding to voters in
order to influence them and also exceeded the campaign cost of $ 35,000.
Allahabad High Court ruled that Indira Gandhi's election was null and void due to corruption on June 12, 1975. as a result,
he was barred from running for office for another six years. Disappointed by the decision, he appealed to the Supreme Court, but
while SC was on vacation at the time, he was granted a death sentence.
Subsequently, an emergency proclamation was announced by then-President Fakhrudeen Ali Ahmad saying the reason for
that was an internal disturbance but it is clear that the ‘real reason’ that led to the emergency was the trial of the Allahabad high
court in the Raj Narain vs Uttar Pradesh case. And on August 10, 1975, the 39th Constitution of the Constitution (Amendment) of
1971 came to an end with the insertion of Section 329-A in the Constitution, which completely prohibited the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction in electoral matters - making elections for President, Prime Minister, Deputy President. -President therefore the
Speaker of Lok Sabha is not understood within the court of law. The Constitution of Act 39 of the Constitution (Amendment),
1975 was challenged in the Gandhi High Court vs Raj Narain.

Arguments”
The main issue was the 39th amendment. A was affecting and violating the basic structure of the Constitution and was
therefore unconstitutional. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law but Indira Gandhi, when
proposing such a law, placed himself and others above the law which was unjust. Respondents pointed out that the function of the
Legislature is to legislate and can make and pass laws. The power to determine the rule of law, however, is also in the hands of the
judiciary. Taking jurisdiction over the courts under an election complaint that was unfair to the Justice and legal review is an
important part of the constitution and cannot be changed as stated in the Bill of Rights. Respondents therefore argued that the 39
amendments are only intended to benefit Indhira Gandhi and the party and violate the basic rules of the law.
Applicants have suggested that the decision of the landmark case, the decision of Kesavananda Bharati it will not be taken
as a basis for deciding that the election will be fair and free. Indira Gandhi's party said that while the Constitution of the various
countries leaves their electoral disputes in the legislature, there are various articles in our Constitution that show that the review of
justice can be excluded from such cases. Some of the applicants presented how Kesavananda Bharati's case did not cover election
disputes but dealt with the meaning of the word 'amendment'. Finally, Indira Gandhi's party stated that the law is not part of the
Constitution and without Article 14, our Constitution does not recognize the doctrine of equality or the rule of law.
Judgement”
The most favorable decision was made on November 7, 1975, and was the first in a series of landmarks in the case of
Kesavananda Bharati. The majority decision identified Article 4 of Article 329 as unconstitutional. The decision was made by the
Constitutional bench 3-2. In the resolution, it was stated that the 39th amendment "would violate the provision of the Constitution,
namely, the resolution of electoral disputes through the exercise of judicial power by obtaining judicial facts and applying the
applicable law to determine the person represented by the people."
 Justice Chadrachud researches that the “39th Amendment violates the principle of separation of powers by
transferring the power of justice to the legislature only”.
 Matthew J argued that Article 329-A (4) contradicts the basic constitutional framework. He said it was possible for
free and fair elections to be held in order to work for a healthy democracy and an authorized amendment to do so.
 Chief Justice Ray found another fundamental element that violated this amendment, namely, the law.
The bench also alleged that the amendment violated the principles of environmental justice by ‘listening to the other side’ as it
denied the right to a fair hearing to those who challenged the election of the members mentioned in the amendment. It was for
various reasons that the 39th Amendment Act, 1975 was repealed as it was unconstitutional and violated the basic framework of
the Constitution. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling by the Supreme Court of Allahabad, acquitted Indira Gandhi of all
corruption charges, and acquitted her, thus legalizing her election.

IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT”

The case has had a profound effect on Indian politics. Following a lengthy, twisted and pleasurable trial, the court
announced that the charges against Ms. Gandhi proven. The court's findings against the incumbent not only contributed to the
development of the judiciary but also helped to transform India's political power. A ruling by the Allahabad Supreme Court has
ruled that the election of Prime Minister Gandhi is no longer valid and ordered him to step down. Ms. Gandhi appealed the
decision, but the decision was not reversed by the Supreme Court of India. The decision is viewed worldwide as a step taken by
Indian courts. The judiciary also appears as a protector of the interests of citizens. More about the case and its consequences can
be found in the book ‘The Case That Shook India: The Verdict That Led to The Emergency’ written by Mr Prashant Bhusan, son of
response counselor Shanti Bhusan.

Individual Contribution”
 Anmol Arora: Introduction
 Sarthak Bansal: Background
 Nikhil Bhatt: Arguments
 Tushar Singh Tomar: Judgement
 Sarthak Mishra: Importance and Impact

Reference”
 Youtube.com
 LawTimesJournal.in
 Barandbench.com
 Brainyias.com
 BlogsIPleaders.in
Plagiarism Checker”
Text Used For Plagiarism Checking
Introduction”
Raj Narain’s case in comparison to then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi continues to be one of the most historic and momentous decisions in Indian
history and led to the imposition of emergencies in India from 1975 to 1977. a show that Parliament expected the judiciary to kneel before them.
Parliament has tried to determine the magnitude of the case but has been replaced by law enforcement. The case posed a number of important questions
to the Constitution such as its basic structure, judicial powers, the division of the three spheres of government namely: Legal, administrative and
judicial, legislative functions, the right to free and fair elections, the rule of law and the final review, political justice.
It was a crucial moment in Indian history that the election of a prime minister was set aside. This case has strongly affected the teaching of the
Constitutional Framework, which said it would not be amended a few years ago before the crucial trial of Kesavananda Bharati vs Union of India
(1973). The trial in the Supreme Court took place during an emergency where basic rights were suspended and the media was forced into account,
because there had never been a public hearing or case reporting. The case has had a profound effect on Indian politics.
Background”
The whole issue focused on the national elections held in India until the 5th convention in 1971, when Indira Gandhi campaigned heavily for himself
and his party and guided the ANC out of victory by winning 352 seats out of 518 seats in the said election. Raj Narain, the SSP leader of Ram Manohar
Lohia stood against Indira Gandhi in the Rae Bareilly election in Uttar Pradesh. Raj Narain was so confident of his victory in the election, he tried to go
so far as to take the victory meeting before the results were announced. Raj Narain was deeply disappointed when he lost the election by a landslide. Raj
Narain did not accept defeat and decided to file a petition to cancel the election, accusing Indira Gandhi of accepting corrupt practices during his
election campaigns. On April 24, 1971, he challenged the Prime Minister's election by filing an application with the Supreme Court of Allahabad,
alleging that Indira Gandhi had violated the election code set out in the 1951 Representation of the People Act as his election campaign was widely
used. government officials associated with the armed forces and the local police. He also alleged that Indira Gandhi used government vehicles in his
election campaign, and distributed alcohol and bedding to voters in order to influence them and also exceeded the campaign cost of $ 35,000.
Allahabad High Court ruled that Indira Gandhi's election was null and void due to corruption on June 12, 1975. as a result, he was barred from running
for office for another six years. Disappointed by the decision, he appealed to the Supreme Court, but while SC was on vacation at the time, he was
granted a death sentence.
Subsequently, an emergency proclamation was announced by then-President Fakhrudeen Ali Ahmad saying the reason for that was an internal
disturbance but it is clear that the ‘real reason’ that led to the emergency was the trial of the Allahabad high court in the Raj Narain vs Uttar Pradesh
case. And on August 10, 1975, the 39th Constitution of the Constitution (Amendment) of 1971 came to an end with the insertion of Section 329-A in the
Constitution, which completely prohibited the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in electoral matters - making elections for President, Prime Minister, Deputy
President. -President therefore the Speaker of Lok Sabha is not understood within the court of law. The Constitution of Act 39 of the Constitution
(Amendment), 1975 was challenged in the Gandhi High Court vs Raj Narain.
Arguments”
The main issue was the 39th amendment. A was affecting and violating the basic structure of the Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional. Article
14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law but Indira Gandhi, when proposing such a law, placed himself and others above
the law which was unjust. Respondents pointed out that the function of the Legislature is to legislate and can make and pass laws. The power to
determine the rule of law, however, is also in the hands of the judiciary. Taking jurisdiction over the courts under an election complaint that was unfair to
the Justice and legal review is an important part of the constitution and cannot be changed as stated in the Bill of Rights. Respondents therefore argued
that the 39 amendments are only intended to benefit Indhira Gandhi and the party and violate the basic rules of the law.
Applicants have suggested that the decision of the landmark case, the decision of Kesavananda Bharati it will not be taken as a basis for deciding that
the election will be fair and free. Indira Gandhi's party said that while the Constitution of the various countries leaves their electoral disputes in the
legislature, there are various articles in our Constitution that show that the review of justice can be excluded from such cases. Some of the applicants
presented how Kesavananda Bharati's case did not cover election disputes but dealt with the meaning of the word 'amendment'. Finally, Indira Gandhi's
party stated that the law is not part of the Constitution and without Article 14, our Constitution does not recognize the doctrine of equality or the rule of
law.
Judgement”
The most favorable decision was made on November 7, 1975, and was the first in a series of landmarks in the case of Kesavananda Bharati. The
majority decision identified Article 4 of Article 329 as unconstitutional. The decision was made by the Constitutional bench 3-2. In the resolution, it was
stated that the 39th amendment "would violate the provision of the Constitution, namely, the resolution of electoral disputes through the exercise of
judicial power by obtaining judicial facts and applying the applicable law to determine the person represented by the people."
•Justice Chadrachud found that “the 39th Amendment violates the principle of separation of powers by transfering the power of justice to the legislature
only”.
•Matthew J argued that Article 329-A (4) contradicts the basic constitutional framework. He said it was possible for free and fair elections to be held in
order to work for a healthy democracy and an authorized amendment to do so.
•Chief Justice Ray found another fundamental element that violated this amendment, namely, the law.
The bench also alleged that the amendment violated the principles of environmental justice by ‘listening to the other side’ as it denied the right to a fair
hearing to those who challenged the election of the members mentioned in the amendment. It was for various reasons that the 39th Amendment Act,
1975 was repealed as it was unconstitutional and violated the basic framework of the Constitution. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling by the
Supreme Court of Allahabad, acquitted Indira Gandhi of all corruption charges, and acquitted her, thus legalizing her election.
IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT”
The case has had a profound effect on Indian politics. Following a lengthy, twisted and pleasurable trial, the court announced that the charges against
Ms. Gandhi proven. The court's findings against the incumbent not only contributed to the development of the judiciary but also helped to transform
India's political power. A ruling by the Allahabad Supreme Court has ruled that the election of Prime Minister Gandhi is no longer valid and ordered him
to step down. Ms. Gandhi appealed the decision, but the decision was not reversed by the Supreme Court of India. The decision is viewed worldwide as
a step taken by Indian courts. The judiciary also appears as a protector of the interests of citizens. More about the case and its consequences can be
found in the book ‘The Case That Shook India: The Verdict That Led to The Emergency’ written by Mr Prashant Bhusan, son of response counselor
Shanti Bhusan.