Law Maker

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

Supreme Court of India · 7 November 1975 · 5 judges

By majority, clause (4) of Article 329A, which declared the Prime Minister's disputed election valid, was held unconstitutional; all five judges upheld the retrospective election law amendments, so her appeal succeeded and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

Facts

Raj Narain challenged Indira Nehru Gandhi's 1971 election to the Lok Sabha from Rae Bareli. On 12 June 1975 the Allahabad High Court held her guilty of corrupt practice under section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for obtaining the assistance of gazetted officers, including Yashpal Kapur, declared the election void and disqualified her for six years. She appealed and Raj Narain filed a cross appeal. While the appeals were pending, the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 inserted Article 329A, whose clause (4) declared the election valid notwithstanding the judgment and excluded the election laws, and clause (5) required pending appeals to be decided in conformity with it. Acts 58 of 1974 and 40 of 1975 also retrospectively amended the 1951 Act, including the definition of 'candidate', and Act 40 was placed in the Ninth Schedule.

Questions before the Court

  1. Whether clause (4) of Article 329A, inserted by the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975, is valid.
  2. Whether the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 are valid, and whether ordinary laws can be tested against the basic structure.
  3. Whether the amendments are invalid because opposition members of Parliament were in preventive detention when they were passed.
  4. Whether, under the law as it stood, the election was void for corrupt practice or excess election expenses.

What the Court held

  • Three of the five judges, Khanna, Mathew and Chandrachud JJ., held clause (4) of Article 329A unconstitutional (Chandrachud J. also clause (5)). Ray C.J. did not declare it void but held that its validation of the election applied no law and offended the rule of law, so the appeals had to be heard on merits.
  • Khanna J. held that clause (4) violated free and fair elections, part of the basic structure, by abolishing the forum and extinguishing the right and remedy of challenge. Mathew and Chandrachud JJ. held that deciding a particular election dispute is a judicial function, not law-making. Beg J. read clause (4) as leaving the Court's jurisdiction intact.
  • All five judges upheld the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 and the 1974 Act, including their retrospective operation. Ray C.J., Mathew and Chandrachud JJ. held that the basic structure test applies to constitutional amendments and not to ordinary legislation; Khanna and Beg JJ. found that the amendments did not damage free and fair elections.
  • The amendments were not invalid because some members of Parliament were in detention when they were passed; the legality of those detentions could not be questioned collaterally in these proceedings.
  • Under the amended law a person becomes a candidate only on nomination, so the finding of corrupt practice under section 123(7) could not stand. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment and the disqualification were set aside, and the cross appeal on election expenses failed.

Why it matters

Three of the five judges applied the basic structure limit on the amending power to hold invalid a constitutional amendment that decided a particular election dispute. Khanna J. treated free and fair elections, as part of democracy, as a basic feature; Mathew and Chandrachud JJ. relied on the judicial nature of deciding such a dispute. Ray C.J., Mathew and Chandrachud JJ. also held that ordinary laws are tested by legislative competence and fundamental rights, not by the basic structure.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Clause (4) suffers from these infirmities. First, the forum might be changed but another forum has to be created. If the constituent power became itself the forum to decide the disputes the constituent power by repealing the law in relation to election petitions and matters connected therewith did not have any petition to seize upon to deal with the same. Secondly, any decision is to be made in accordance with law. Parliament has power to create law and apply the same.”
Ray, C.J.Page 72 of the judgment
“Rule of law postulates that the decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is not predictable and such decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law.”
Khanna, J.Page 125 of the judgment
“Likewise, the previous forum for adjudicating upon the election dispute which went into the matter, has been divested of its jurisdiction with retrospective effect and, at the same time, no jurisdiction has been vested in any other forum to go into the matters. The present is not a case of change of forum. It is, on the contrary, one of the abolition of forum.”
Khanna, J.Page 126 of the judgment
“In the instant case the Parliament has withdrawn the application of all laws whatsoever to the disputed election and has taken upon itself to decide that the election is valid. Clause (5) commands the Supreme Court to dispose of the appeal and the cross-appeal in conformity with the provisions of clause (4) of Article 329A, that is, in conformity with the "judgment" delivered by the Parliament.”
Chandrachud, J.Page 323 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain (and Vice Versa)
Case
Civil Appeal Nos. 887 and 909 of 1975
Decided
7 November 1975
Bench
A. N. Ray, C.J., H. R. Khanna, K. K. Mathew, M. H. Beg, Y. V. Chandrachud
Opinions
Five separate opinions by Ray C.J., Khanna, Mathew, Beg and Chandrachud JJ. All five allowed the appeal, dismissed the cross appeal and upheld the election law amendments. On clause (4) of Article 329A, Khanna, Mathew and Chandrachud JJ. held it unconstitutional; Ray C.J. held that its validation of the election applied no law and offended the rule of law, so the appeal could not be disposed of in conformity with it, but did not declare it void; Beg J. read it as not barring the Court's jurisdiction.

Questions on this case

4 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

  1. Question 1 · Constitutional Law Practice Set 3 — Rights, Cases & Structure

    In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court held that free and fair elections are:

    1. A. Not judicially reviewable
    2. B. Subject to Parliament's discretion
    3. C. Part of the basic structure of the Constitution
    4. D. Outside constitutional protection
    Show the answer

    C. Part of the basic structure of the Constitution

    In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Court struck down clause (4) of Article 329A inserted by the 39th Amendment, holding that free and fair elections and democracy are part of the basic structure.