Article 329A

Article 329A was a short-lived constitutional provision inserted during the Emergency period by the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975, to create special rules governing the elections of the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. It significantly curtailed judicial scrutiny over their elections, insulating them from challenges in courts of law. However, the Article was later repealed by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, following the restoration of democratic norms and the reaffirmation of the rule of law and judicial review as essential features of the Constitution.

Historical Context

The insertion of Article 329A occurred in the aftermath of the landmark Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case, where the Allahabad High Court invalidated the election of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on grounds of electoral malpractice.
The verdict, which threatened the Prime Minister’s continuance in office, was delivered during a politically volatile period. To nullify the impact of the court’s decision and to shield future elections to high offices from judicial interference, the government introduced Article 329A through the Thirty-ninth Amendment Act, 1975.
This amendment aimed to place the elections of the Prime Minister, Speaker, and certain other key parliamentary offices beyond the purview of judicial review, thereby undermining the independence of the judiciary and altering the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

Text and Provisions of Article 329A

Article 329A, as inserted by the Thirty-ninth Amendment Act, 1975, contained five clauses.

Clause (1): Special Jurisdiction Over Election Disputes

• Applied to elections to either House of Parliament involving:
  • The Prime Minister, whether holding office at the time of election or appointed thereafter; and
  • The Speaker of the Lok Sabha, whether holding office at the time of election or chosen later.
• Parliament was authorised to make laws providing that:
  • Doubts and disputes regarding such elections would be decided not by courts but by a special authority designated by Parliament.
  • The law could also define the grounds on which such elections could be questioned.

Clause (2): Exclusion of Judicial Review

• The validity of:
  • Any law made under Clause (1), and
  • Any decision rendered by the designated authority under such law,could not be questioned in any court of law.

Clauses (3) to (5): Ancillary Provisions

• These clauses further reinforced the exclusion of judicial scrutiny, validating prior elections and insulating them from challenge.
• They provided that laws made under this Article would operate retrospectively, effectively overturning adverse judicial decisions such as the one in Indira Gandhi’s case.

Objectives Behind Article 329A

1. Shielding High Offices from Judicial Scrutiny: The primary goal was to protect the elections of the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha from being invalidated by judicial intervention.
2. Ensuring Governmental Continuity: It was argued that judicial challenges to the Prime Minister’s election could destabilise the functioning of the government.
3. Consolidation of Executive Power: The provision reflected an attempt by the executive to curtail the judiciary’s role in maintaining electoral accountability.
4. Political Motivation: In practice, the insertion of Article 329A was seen as an emergency-era measure designed to legitimise Indira Gandhi’s continuance as Prime Minister despite the Allahabad High Court’s judgment.

Constitutional Implications

Article 329A had far-reaching implications for India’s democratic and constitutional framework:

• It undermined the independence of the judiciary, a cornerstone of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• It violated the principle of equality before law (Article 14) by creating a privileged category of elected officials immune from judicial scrutiny.
• It diluted the concept of free and fair elections, a basic feature of democracy.
• It concentrated unchecked power in the hands of the executive, eroding the system of checks and balances.

Judicial Context

Although Article 329A was enacted after the Allahabad High Court judgment in Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi, the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) became the turning point in assessing its constitutional validity.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

• The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Thirty-ninth Amendment, including Article 329A.
• The Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329A as unconstitutional, holding that they violated the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the principles of:
  • Rule of law,
  • Judicial review, and
  • Free and fair elections.
• The Court held that even Parliament could not place the elections of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
• This case reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guardian of constitutional integrity.

Repeal of Article 329A

After the Emergency (1975–1977) ended, the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 329A in its entirety.

Reasons for Repeal:

1. To restore judicial oversight over election disputes involving all public offices, including the Prime Minister and Speaker.
2. To reaffirm the supremacy of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
3. To reverse the excesses committed during the Emergency period and realign the Constitution with its original democratic principles.

Effects of Repeal:

• The elections of the Prime Minister and Speaker are now subject to judicial review under the ordinary process of election petitions, as governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• The Supreme Court and High Courts can now examine disputes concerning these elections, just as they can for other elected representatives.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Political and Legal Significance

1. A Lesson in Constitutional Abuse: Article 329A serves as a reminder of how constitutional amendments can be misused to undermine democratic institutions.
2. Judicial Triumph: The Supreme Court’s intervention in striking down parts of Article 329A reaffirmed the doctrine of the basic structure and the centrality of judicial review in preserving constitutionalism.
3. Restoration of Democratic Principles: Its repeal through the Forty-fourth Amendment symbolised India’s return to democratic normalcy after the Emergency and reinstated electoral accountability for all, including those holding the highest offices.

Present Status

• Article 329A stands repealed.
• Elections to the offices of the Prime Minister and Speaker are now governed by the same constitutional and statutory framework applicable to all parliamentary elections.
• Disputes regarding such elections are adjudicated under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, ensuring equality before law and judicial scrutiny.