Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain- (Case Commentary)

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 12^th 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 24^th 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 11^th August, 1975 but on 10^th August, 1975 the President of the emergency – stricken India made thirty-nine Amendment in its constitution and inserted Article 329-A to altogether bar 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-ninth 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 7^th 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.

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 violative of 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 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.

---

[1] Raj Narain v. Uttar Pradesh 1975 A.I.R. 865.

[2] Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2299.

-Yash Singh

University of Allahabad.