CASE COMMENTARY ON INDIRA GANDHI NEHRU V.

SHRI RAJ
NARAIN & ANR

SUBMITTED BY: VAISHNAVI SHREYA JHA

SEMESTER- SIXTH
ROLL NUMBER- 2645
SUBMITTED TO: PROF. DR. FAIZAN
MUSTAFA, VICE-CHANCELLOR, PROF. DR.
ANIRUDH PRASAD, PROFESSOR OF
LAWAND DR. G.P. PANDEY, ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR OF LAW

This Final Draft is submitted in the partial fulfilment of the project of course
titled CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-II for the completion of
B.B.A.L.L.B(HONS).

1|Page
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the project titled on ‘CASE COMMENTARY: INDIRA NEHRU
GANDHI V. RAJ NARAIN & ANR submitted by me at Chanakya National Law
University is a record of bona fide project work carried out by me under the guidance
of PROF. DR FAIZAN MUSTAFA, PROF. DR ANIRUDH PRASAD AND DR G.P.
PANDEY I further declare that the work reported in this project has not been submitted
and will not be submitted, either in part or in full, for the award of any other degree or
diploma in this university or any other university.

VAISHNAVI SHREYA JHA

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research work is a culmination of efforts of lots of people who gave their intense support and
helped me in the completion of this project. First, I am very grateful to my teacher PROF. DR.
FAIZAN MUSTAFA, PROF. DR. ANIRUDH PRASAD AND DR. G.P. PANDEY whose guidance
and advice helped me in completing my project. They explained the topic clearly and helped me
proceed in my project work. I would also like to thank them for his valuable suggestions towards the
making of this project. I am highly indebted to my parents and friends for their co- operation and
encouragement which helped me in completion of this project. I am also thankful to the library staff
of my university who assisted me in acquiring the necessary sources for the completion of my project.
Lastly, I would like to thank my parents for their constant support and faith in me, which motivated
me to concentrate on my project and to complete it in time. I thank all of them!

3|Page
CASE NAME: INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI V. SHRI RAJ NARAIN & ANR

CITATION: AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 2299

FORUM/BENCH: A.N. RAY (CJ), H.R. KHANNA, K.K. MATHEW, M.H. BEG AND Y.V.
CHANDRACHUD

INTRODUCTION:

The legal battle between Indira Gandhi and Raj Narain stands as a pivotal moment in Indian history,
marking a clash between the executive and judicial branches of government that reverberated far
beyond the confines of the courtroom. This landmark case not only tested the limits of judicial
authority but also served as a litmus test for the strength of India's democratic institutions during a
tumultuous period. At its core, the Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain case was emblematic of a struggle for
power between the Parliament and the judiciary. It underscored the delicate balance of power
enshrined in the Indian Constitution, particularly the separation of powers between the legislative,
executive, and judicial branches. Parliament, through its actions, sought to assert dominance over the
judiciary, expecting it to acquiesce to its will. However, the judiciary, led by the Supreme Court,
demonstrated its independence by upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law.

This legal battle raised fundamental questions about the nature of India's democracy and the sanctity
of its institutions. It delved into the very fabric of the Constitution, examining its basic structure and
the essential principles upon which it was built. The case challenged the power of jurisdiction of the
courts, highlighting the judiciary's role as the guardian of the Constitution and the final arbiter of legal
disputes. Moreover, it underscored the importance of free and fair elections, a cornerstone of
democracy, and the need to protect the integrity of the electoral process from undue influence.

What makes this case particularly noteworthy is the context in which it unfolded – during the period
of Emergency from 1975 to 1977. The Emergency saw the suspension of fundamental rights and the
imposition of press censorship, creating a climate of fear and uncertainty. Against this backdrop, the
hearing of the case in the Supreme Court took on added significance. Despite the constraints imposed
by the Emergency, the judiciary remained steadfast in its commitment to upholding the principles of
justice and fairness.

The implications of the Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain case extended far beyond the legal realm, shaping
the course of Indian politics for years to come. It served as a wake-up call for those who sought to
undermine the principles of democracy and rule of law. The case reaffirmed the importance of an
independent judiciary as a bulwark against tyranny and oppression. In essence, the Indira Gandhi vs.
Raj Narain case was more than just a legal dispute – it was a battle for the soul of India's democracy.
It tested the resilience of India's institutions and reaffirmed their commitment to upholding the
principles of justice, equality, and freedom. In doing so, it left an indelible mark on the political
landscape of India, serving as a reminder of the enduring power of the rule of law.

4|Page
FACTS OF THE CASE:

Raj Narain emerged as a formidable political opponent to Mrs. Indira Gandhi during the 1971 Lok
Sabha General Elections for the Rae Bareilly seat. Despite Mrs. Gandhi's victory and the Congress
party's sweeping majority in the House, Narain challenged the election results by filing a petition
before the Allahabad High Court, alleging electoral malpractices by Mrs. Gandhi. On June 12, 1975,
Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Narain, finding Mrs. Gandhi
guilty of misusing government resources in violation of Section 123(7) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951. Consequently, the court declared Mrs. Gandhi ineligible to hold the office of Prime
Minister of India and barred her from contesting elections for the following six years. Mrs. Gandhi,
aggrieved by this decision, decided to appeal the ruling of the Allahabad High Court before the
Supreme Court. However, Mrs. Gandhi's appeal faced a setback as the Supreme Court was on vacation
at the time. Despite this, the Court granted a conditional stay on the execution of the Allahabad High
Court's decision on June 24, 1975.

Subsequently, a state of emergency was declared by the then-President, citing internal disturbances in
the country. However, the pivotal event that paved the way for the imposition of emergency was the
judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Raj Narain v. Uttar Pradesh. While the
Supreme Court had scheduled a hearing for August 11, 1975, President of the emergency-stricken
India hastily passed the 39th Amendment to the Constitution on August 10, 1975. This amendment
introduced Article 329-A, which effectively stripped the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to entertain
matters related to the elections of the President, Prime Minister, Vice-President, and the Speaker of
the Lok Sabha. Consequently, this move rendered the elections of these key positions immune from
judicial scrutiny.

The 39th Amendment faced legal challenge in the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi
v. Raj Narain. This legal battle underscored the tension between the executive and judicial branches
of government and raised fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the independence
of the judiciary. In essence, the events surrounding Raj Narain's challenge to Mrs. Gandhi's election
victory and the subsequent legal proceedings highlighted the fragility of India's democratic institutions
and the lengths to which those in power were willing to go to protect their interests.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

On November 7, 1975, the court delivered its judgment, marking a significant moment in Indian legal
history as it considered the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharti. In this case, the apex court
scrutinized the constitutionality of Clause 4 of Article 329A. The court, echoing the sentiments of
Justice Mathew, condemned Clause 4 for its detrimental impact on the democratic essence of the
Constitution. Justice Mathew argued that the vitality of a democracy hinges upon the possibility of
free and fair elections, which Clause 4 compromised by rendering such elections impossible. He
contended that this amendment violated the foundational principles of the Constitution.

Justice Chandrachud, in alignment with Justice Mathew, emphasized that the amendment encroached
upon the principle of Separation of Powers by usurping a purely judicial function and vesting it in the

5|Page
executive. Furthermore, he highlighted the amendment's infringement of Article 14 by creating an
unequal playing field for certain individuals compared to others. Chief Justice Ray asserted that the
amendment contravened the rule of law, while Justice Khanna underscored its violation of the norms
essential for free and fair elections. The bench unanimously concurred that the amendment deprived
individuals of their right to a fair hearing, thus transgressing the principles of natural justice.

The bedrock of the Indian Constitution is democracy, and the amending body, i.e., Parliament, does
not possess the authority to retroactively validate an invalid election. Such a move epitomizes the
dictatorial exercise of unbridled power. The amendment sought to confer dictatorial powers upon
Parliament, but legislative bodies lack the capacity to adjudicate facts like judicial bodies do.
Therefore, the bench concluded that the impugned amendment sounded the death knell for democracy.

Considering these multifaceted reasons, the court struck down the 39th Amendment Act of 1975,
deeming it unconstitutional and violative of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. This decision
underscored the judiciary's role as the guardian of constitutional principles and its commitment to
upholding the sanctity of democracy. It served as a potent reminder of the importance of judicial
review in safeguarding the foundational values enshrined in the Constitution.

In summary, the judgment rendered by the court in this case was a testament to the judiciary's
unwavering commitment to preserving the integrity of India's democratic institutions. It reaffirmed the
principle that no authority, not even Parliament, is above the Constitution, and underscored the
judiciary's pivotal role in upholding the rule of law.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT:

The judgment rendered in this case stands as one of the most consequential decisions ever delivered
by the Indian judiciary. It served as a potent reminder to Parliament of its rightful place within the
constitutional framework. The judiciary's resolute stance affirmed that in a democracy, the executive
and legislative branches are not omnipotent; rather, they are subject to the oversight of an independent
judiciary tasked with upholding the Constitution and safeguarding democracy from the potential
abuses of power.

At the heart of this landmark decision was the judiciary's steadfast commitment to the principle of
Separation of Powers, which serves as a bulwark against the concentration of power in any one branch
of government. By striking down the 39th constitutional amendment, the court reinforced the
importance of checks and balances in a democratic system, ensuring that no branch of government
oversteps its bounds or encroaches upon the prerogatives of another.

The genesis of the 39th constitutional amendment lay in the government's desire to shield itself from
the ramifications of the Allahabad High Court's decision. During the period of emergency, there was
a prevailing belief within the government that the judiciary would capitulate and forsake its duty to
uphold the Constitution. However, the judiciary rose to the occasion and decisively repudiated the
draconian amendment aimed at legitimizing an invalid election.

In essence, the court's ruling underscored the supremacy of the Constitution over Parliament. It
6|Page
rejected Parliament's attempt to arrogate unto itself powers that exceeded the constitutional bounds.
Moreover, the court staunchly defended the principle of Free and Fair elections, emphasizing their
indispensable role in ensuring the democratic legitimacy of the government.

The judiciary eloquently articulated the indispensable nature of Free and Fair elections, emphasizing
that democracy thrives only when the people are afforded the opportunity to freely elect their
representatives. The 39th amendment sought to insulate key political positions, such as the Prime
Minister, President, Vice President, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha, from judicial scrutiny, thereby
undermining the very foundations of democracy.

By nullifying this amendment, the court reaffirmed the primacy of the Rule of Law and demonstrated
its unwavering commitment to upholding the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution. It
sent a clear message that in a democracy, no individual or institution is above the law, and that attempts
to subvert the democratic process will be met with resolute opposition from the judiciary.

The court's judgment in this case was a resounding victory for democracy and the Rule of Law. It
served as a powerful rebuke to attempts by the executive and legislative branches to undermine the
constitutional order and reaffirmed the judiciary's indispensable role as the guardian of democratic
values and principles.

CONCLUSION:

The landmark judgment by the Supreme Court marked the first application of the fundamental doctrine
to safeguard the constitution from malicious assaults. Through a unanimous decision by a five-judge
bench, the court sent a clear message to Parliament that its mandate is to enact laws for the benefit of
the people of India, rather than laws detrimental to their interests. This ruling was a triumph for the
Rule of Law, reaffirming that it is the law itself that prevails, not those who enact it. The apex court
asserted that the law stands supreme, impervious to manipulation even by elected representatives. As
the world's largest democracy, India's democratic essence hinges upon the conduct of free and fair
elections. Parliament's attempt to subvert this foundational principle in order to legitimize an invalid
election was vehemently rebuked. After all, what is the essence of democracy—"for the people, by the
people, and of the people"—if free and fair elections are compromised? The amendment privileged
certain members by shielding their elections from judicial scrutiny, thereby depriving individuals of
their right to seek redress. The court's ruling underscored that Parliament is subject to the law and
cannot act beyond its constitutional mandate. Its attempt to assert supremacy over the Constitution
was thwarted by the judiciary, which upheld the essence of democracy—free and fair elections. Indira
Gandhi's efforts to elevate her government's legislative power above the Constitution were decisively
repudiated, affirming the accuracy and precision of the Fundamental Rights Case decision.

7|Page