• In the Supreme Court of India

Civil Appeal No: 887 and 909 of 1975

• Citation:

1975 (Supplement) Supreme Court Cases 1

• Appellant:

Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi

• Respondent:

Shri Raj Narain

• Decided on:

November 7th, 1975

• Bench:

Chief Justice A.N. Ray, Justice H.R. Khanna, Justice K.K Mathew. Justice Y.V. Chadrachud,
Justice M.H. Beg

• Introduction:
The case of Raj Narain versus the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi continues to be one of
the landmarks and most high-profile judgments in Indian history. The whole case revolved
around the election of Indira Gandhi from her constituency of Rae Bareilly. While Indira
Gandhi won by a huge margin of votes, the opposition alleged electoral malpractices. In the
series of appeals and cross-appeals that followed, a lot of constitutional intricacies were
discussed at lengths, and it was the first time a constitutional amendment was struck down by
applying the doctrine of basic structure triumphed in the Kesavananda Bharti Case.

• Facts:

• During the 1971 general elections Indira Gandhi of the Congress Party went up against Raj
Narain, the leader of the Janta Party, for the seat of Rae Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh. Congress
came out victorious by a huge margin of votes.

• Raj Narain was confident about his victory and decided to take Indira Gandhi’s election to the
Allahabad High Court alleging electoral malpractices based on seven grounds.

• The trial judge upheld the allegations on two grounds and declared the elections as vitiated by
corrupt practices. The grounds were that (i) Gandhi had taken the assistance of a gazette officer
of Uttar Pradesh for furthering her election prospects, and (ii) she also obtained the assistance
of Mr. Yashpal Kapoor, a gazette officer of the Government of India, for the same purpose.
The High Court subsequently awarded costs to the election petitioner.

• The High Court delivered its verdict on the 12th of June 1975, and barred her from contesting
into elections for another six years. Indira Gandhi decided to file a cross-appeal in the Supreme
Court.

• Meanwhile during the pendency of the cross-appeal, the Election Laws (Amendment) Act,
1975 (the 39th Constitutional Amendment) was passed by the Parliament, which retrospectively
amended the existing laws and imposed parliamentary control over appeals lying before the
Court. It barred the jurisdiction of Supreme Court form entertaining the matter of elections-
 making the elections of President, Prime Minister, Vice-President and the Speaker of Lok
Sabha unjustifiable in the court of law.

• Constitutionality of another legislation, the People (Amendment) Act of 1974 was also brought
to question in the case.
• Issue Raised:

• Questions were raised on the constitutionality of the 39th Amendment Act of 1975.

• Whether the 39th Amendment was passed by the Parliament constitutionally.

• Regarding the constitutionality of Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and

Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975.

• Contentions:

From the Respondent side:

• Mr. Santi Bhusan, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Raj Narain,
challenged the constitutionality of the 39th Amendment Act based on the Doctrine of Basic
Structure as enunciated in the case of Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala.

• He contended that the 39th amendment seemed to curtail the jurisdiction of the Court and was
therefore against the Basic structure of the Constitution. Article 368 of the Constitution cannot
be exercised by the Parliament to legislate in a manner that affects the basic structure of the
Constitution.

• The counsel further pointed out that the amendment infringes upon the concept of separation
of powers, and every dispute where adjudication of legal rights is required must be left to the
judiciary.

• The counsel stated that by providing that Prime Minister Gandhi shall remain in power despite
the Allahabad High Court verdict finding Mrs. Gandhi guilty of corrupt electoral practices,
defeats the complete idea of a democracy.

• Mr. Bhusan further contended that election matters such as declaring the winner of elections
clearly fall out of the purview of the amending powers given under Article 368.
Another set of objections was raised by the respondents based on the composition of the
parliamentary House that passed the Act.
• Several members from both the Houses of the Parliament were detained through an executive
order after the 26th of July 1975.

• They were not made aware of any grounds for their detention, but owing to the same, the
Houses that passed the 39th Amendment act were missing several legislators. In a constitutional
setup, every legislator has an equal right to vote. Therefore, passing the Act in the absence of
several legislators cannot be regarded as a session of the Parliament.
About the Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and Election Laws (Amendment)
Act, 1975, the contentions raised by Mr. Bhusan were:

• The power of amending the Constitution cannot be exercised in a manner that damages or
destroys the basic structure of the Constitution. The concepts of free and fair elections
enshrined in our legislations cannot be damaged by any legislative measure.

• Any legislation that comes into force with a retrospective effect too brings with it an aspect of
unfairness and brings about a denial of equality among rival electoral candidates.
From the Appellant side:

• Shri A.K Sen appearing for Smt. Gandhi defended the 39th Amendment stating that it followed
the fixed pattern of all acts by which basis of judgments, orders of all competent courts and
tribunals are changed.

• He contended that the rendering of a judgment ineffective by changing its basis through a
legislative enactment is not an encroachment on judicial power but is well within the powers
of the legislature.

• He said that the legislation has only changed the law insofar elections are concerned. The
determination of election disputes was not an exercise of judicial power. The constituent power
vested with the parliament allows it to assume the duty of such determination in particular
cases, as this.

• He stated that the concept of separation of powers in India is not as stringent or rigid as it is in
some other nations as the United States or Australia. The matters concerning elections and
election petitions give rise to no issues of separation of powers.

• He contended that the change in validation of a single election cannot alter the nature of a
democracy, and hence the questions raised by the respondents regarding the essence of
democracy were vague and impractical.
• Jurist Shri Jagannath Kaushal too supported the case of Mrs. Gandhi and contended that the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court became a nullity cause the Court ceased retrospectively
to have jurisdiction over the dispute, and a nullified judgment could not be challenged in a
collateral proceeding.

• Judgment:
The court provided its judgement on 7th November, 1975 and was the first case in which the
landmark decision of Kesvananda Bharti case was applied. The apex court upheld the contention
of the respondent and declared clause (4) of Article 329-A as unconstitutional.
Mathew J said that Article 329-A(4) destroyed the basic structure of the constitution. He was of
the view that a healthy democracy' can only function when there is possibility of free and fair
elections and the impugned amendment destroyed that possibility.
Chandrachud J. found that the amendment was violative of the principle of separation of powers'
as it wilfully transferred a function into the hands of the legislative which was purely judicial. He
was also of the view that the amendment is violative of Article 14 as it creates unequal positions
of specific members of the Parliament against others.
Ray C.J held that one more basic feature was violated by the said amendment i.e the rule of law
and Justice Khanna was of the opinion of violation of norms of free and fair elections.
The bench also held that the amendment was violative of the principles of natural justice i.e Audi
Alterum Partem which means listening to the other side' as it was denying the right to fair hearing
of those who were challenging the election of the members mentioned in the Amendment.
Hence it was on varied reasons that the 39th Amendment act, 1975 was struck down as it was
unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Analysis:
The decision in the Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case was a brave one taken by the judiciary to put
the greedy' Parliament in its place in the Constitution. It was showed to the Parliament that they
are not the only one in the democracy and judiciary will always be there to uphold the Constitution
from the harmful acts of the Parliament.
However, even though the judgment was theoretically right, it was in many ways flawed on the
grounds of justice, equity and good conscience. It was pretty much evident that the amendments
were made to expel all grounds on which Mrs. Indira Gandhi was found guilty of by Allahabad
High Court. However, the Supreme Court failed to notice that why these amendments were made
in the first place. When many opposition leaders were under Preventive detention, they could not
vote against the amendment (again it was a calculated move by the Gandhi party), Supreme court
 said that it was a matter of the Parliament and the judiciary can have no say in it which was ignorant
of the Supreme Court. It was unmindful in managing the issue when Indira Gandhi abused her
powers to adjust those laws which charged her of corruption.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court was very much aware of the way that Indira Gandhi had made the
amendments to fulfil her political exigencies and had unpredictably forced crisis to spare herself
from being proved guilty. Raj Narain needed to sit tight for a considerable length of time and what
he got was undesirable thinking. However, the Supreme Court did strike down clause 4 of Article
329 being violative of the basic structure. 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
fairelections.
In the pith of the substance, the main aim of the Amendment was to reverse the High Court's
judgement that invalidated Indira Gandhi's election. And instead of resigning, she imposed
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 absolutely
clear that validation or invalidation of elections is undoubtedly a judicial matter and cannot be
interfered by the Legislature.
The Court proved that Parliament cannot take the law in 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.

• Conclusion/After Effects of Judgments:

The Time when the parliament took situation in its control, the severe losses were occurred by
the judiciary. This made parliament so enraged that it decided to make a law in which no court
will have the jurisdiction or interference to hold challenge of constitutional amendment.
Pursuing the above objective, Parliament amended the constitution by enforcing 42nd
constitutional amendment act, 1976, also known as Mini constitution.
This amendment was made to uplift the two elements that are Supremacy of Parliament and
Criticism of Basic Structure.
The Counsellors of the amendment asserted that there is no limitation whatsoever in the
competence of parliament with respect to its amendment powers. All the arguments were based
on the landmark rulings of the Supreme Court in Golaknath1 and kesavananda case.

1
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. (1643), (1967) S.C.R. (2) 762