Skip to main content

Raj Narain vs Indira Gandhi



The case of Raj Narain vs. then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi is still remembered as one of the most significant and high-profile decisions in Indian history. The entire case centred around Indira Gandhi's election in her Rae Bareilly constituency. While Indira Gandhi won by a large margin, the opposition accused her of electoral fraud. A number of constitutional complexities were explored at length in the sequence of appeals and cross-appeals that followed, and it was the first time a constitutional amendment was struck down by applying the doctrine of basic structure won in the Kesavanada Bharati case.

Factual Background of the Case

  • Indira Gandhi of the Congress Party ran against Raj Narain of the Janta Party for the seat of Rae Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh during the 1971 general elections. By a large margin of votes, Congress won.

  • Raj Narain felt confident in his victory and chose to challenge Indira Gandhi's election in the Allahabad High Court on seven grounds, alleging electoral fraud.

  • The claims were upheld by the trial judge on two grounds, and the elections were ruled tainted by corruption.

  • The grounds were that (i) Gandhi had enlisted the help of an Uttar Pradesh gazette officer to improve her electoral prospects, and (ii) she had also enlisted the help of Mr. Yashpal Kapoor, a Government of India gazette officer, for the same purpose. The election petitioner was later awarded costs by the High Court.

  • On June 12, 1975, the High Court handed down its decision, prompting Indira Gandhi to seek a cross-appeal before the Supreme Court.

  • While the cross-appeal was pending, Parliament approved the Election Regulations (Amendment) Act, 1975 (the 39th Constitutional Amendment), which retroactively altered existing laws and established parliamentary authority over appeals pending before the Court.

  • The case also called into doubt the constitutionality of another piece of legislation, the People (Amendment) Act of 1974.

The Election Laws Amendment Act 1975

The 39th Constitutional Amendment Act was responsible for this change. Article 71 and Article 329(A) were added to the Constitution, and the acts Representation of Peoples Act of 1951, Representation of Peoples (Amendment) Act of 1974, and Election Laws (Amendment) Act of 1975 were incorporated into the Ninth Schedule.

The new Article 71 gave Parliament the jurisdiction to regulate presidential and vice-presidential elections. Article 329A comprised six clauses, with clauses 4, 5, and 6 being the most contentious.

Clause (4) exempted Prime Minister Gandhi and the Speaker of the House of Commons from the jurisdiction of the courts and declared the elections lawful. Clause (5) further provided that any appeal or cross appeal pending before the Court relating to these elections would be declared void, and the elections would be declared legitimate; and clause (6) of Article 329A sealed Mrs. Gandhi's case even retroactively by stating that Article 329A would take precedence over the rest of the Constitution.

Issues

  • 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

Judgement

Ratio Decidendi

  • On November 7th, 1975, the long-awaited decision was handed down.

  • Based on the notion of basic structure, the majority judgement declared the challenged clause 4 of Article 329 invalid. 

  • The Constitutional bench ruled in favour of finding the section unlawful by a 3-2 majority, with Justice Chandrachud, Justice Mathew, and Chief Justice Ray voting in favour.

  • The 39th amendment "would demolish a set provision of the Constitution, namely, the resolution of election disputes by the exercise of judicial power by ascertaining adjudicative facts and applying relevant law for finding the true representative of the People," according to the ruling. “The 39th Amendment is a violation of the concept of separation of powers since it intentionally moved a solely judicial role into the hands of the legislature,” Justice Chadrachud concluded.

  • Another fundamental component infringed by the amendment, according to Chief Justice Ray, is the rule of law, whilst Justice Khanna found a violation of free and fair election norms.

Conclusion

To this day, this case is one of the most widely discussed and cited. It was the first time in history that the judiciary overruled popular sentiment and deemed Mrs. Gandhi's election unlawful. To add to the significance of this decision, keep in mind that the country was in the midst of a national emergency and significant socio-political turbulence at the time. The judiciary has emerged as the guardian of citizens' rights. The book 'The Case That Shook India: The Verdict That Led to The Emergency,' written by Mr. Prashant Bhusan, the son of the respondents' counsel Santi Bhusan, may provide more information on this case and its implications. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

List of Documents Required for JMFC EXAM

Candidates preparing for JMFC keep copies of the followings documents List of documents: Graduation and LL.B:  Fresher Candidates- 1. Std. X mark sheet and passing certificate. 2. Std. XII mark sheet and passing certificate. 3. Graduation : last year mark sheet, passing          certificate, degree certificate 4. LLB and B.SL. LL.B. :       • Each SEMESTER mark sheet      • Final year passing certificate      • Third year passing certificate and final year passing certificate for 5 yr course students      • Degree certificate       • Sanad 5. Enrollment Id card 6. Domicile 7. Translation certificate given by College ( after prelims ) 8. LLM:       • Each year mark sheet       • Final year passing certificate      • Degree certificate (if you have)  9. Caste certificate and Non - creamy layer certificate for student appearing as Non creamy layer.  FOR PRACTITIONER :  1. Std. X mark sheet and passing certificate. 2. Std. XII mark sheet and passing certificate. 3. Graduation : last ye
1 comment
Read more

Does caste change after marriage?

* A woman’s caste does not change after marriage. Caste is determined by birth. By default , the father’s caste is the child's caste. Marriage does not alter the caste of someone. So, OBC lady cannot become a SC just because she married a SC male. However, the children of them will belong to SC as the father is a SC. However, there are certain exception in case child of such wedlock ( father UR but mother Reserved) who is raised in reserved community and separated or absence of father presence, he may be treated reserved as per mother caste. There are many exceptions : 1. When orphan child is adopted by mother of reserve caste. 2. When generation of Indian father of reserve caste live outside of India ( with no caste system) and when grand children return to India which caste they will be.
3 comments
Read more

What is the difference between 'sin' and 'offence' ?

Sin is an immoral, bad, unethical and unlawful thing in the eyes of society.  Offence is an unlawful and illegal act or omission which is punishable by the law.  Adultery, prostitution, sex before marriage, eating animals these some of things are considered as sin in the Indian society. But sin is not punishable by the law. The man who commits sin is responsible to the god.  Murder, rape, bigamy, theft, violation of traffic rules these are the some offences. These offences are punishable by law with capital punishment, imprisonment or by fine.  Sin is not a crime. The role of police and judge starts when sin becomes an offence. When it's a sin, it can not be questioned. Police and judge can not take cognizance of sin. A person responsible for sin is answerable before the Supreme Lord of the universe on the day of judgement.
Post a Comment
Read more