Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

The case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) is one of the most pivotal and politically charged judgements in Indian constitutional history. It not only dealt with the legality of the Prime Minister’s election but also tested the limits of parliamentary power and the independence of the judiciary during a period of political upheaval. The decision reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and struck down a constitutional amendment that sought to place the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial scrutiny. It remains a landmark case for its affirmation of the rule of law, judicial review, and democratic equality.

Background and Context

The case arose out of the 1971 general elections to the Lok Sabha. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India and leader of the Indian National Congress, contested the election from the Rae Bareli constituency in Uttar Pradesh. Her main opponent was Raj Narain, a socialist leader representing the opposition.
After Indira Gandhi’s victory, Raj Narain filed an election petition in the Allahabad High Court, alleging corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including:

• The use of government machinery and officials for election purposes.
• Exceeding prescribed election expenditure limits.
• Misuse of government resources for personal campaigning.

On 12 June 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt practices and declared her election null and void under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act. The Court also disqualified her from holding any elective office for six years.
Following this judgement, Indira Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court of India and obtained a conditional stay, which allowed her to remain Prime Minister but barred her from voting in Parliament. Amidst this crisis, on 25 June 1975, she declared a National Emergency under Article 352, citing threats to national security and internal stability. Shortly thereafter, her government passed the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975, which directly affected her pending case.

The Thirty-ninth Amendment, 1975

The Thirty-ninth Amendment Act, 1975 was enacted during the Emergency and had a direct bearing on the case. It inserted Article 329A into the Constitution, which provided:

1. The election of the Prime Minister, President, Vice President, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha could not be challenged in any court.
2. Such elections were to be decided exclusively by a special body established by Parliament.
3. Pending election disputes concerning these offices would stand terminated.

This amendment effectively sought to retroactively validate Indira Gandhi’s election and to exclude the judiciary’s jurisdiction over it.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

The case involved the interpretation of the following provisions of the Constitution:

• Article 14: Right to Equality before the Law.
• Article 19(1)(a) and (g): Freedom of Speech and Occupation.
• Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies.
• Article 329 and 329A: Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.
• Article 368: Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
• Preamble: Democratic and Republican principles of the Constitution.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was required to decide upon the following crucial issues:

1. Whether the Thirty-ninth Amendment, 1975, was constitutionally valid.
2. Whether Parliament has the power to place the election of certain high offices beyond judicial review.
3. Whether the amendment violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
4. Whether Indira Gandhi’s election was valid under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Arguments of the Parties

Raj Narain’s Arguments:

• The Thirty-ninth Amendment violated the Basic Structure Doctrine as it destroyed the principles of rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review.
• Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to protect a specific individual’s election result.
• The amendment was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 (equality before the law).
• Judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be removed.

Indira Gandhi’s Arguments:

• Parliament possesses the constituent power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution without limitation.
• The election of high constitutional functionaries such as the Prime Minister is a political matter and should not be subject to judicial review.
• The amendment was a valid exercise of Parliament’s power intended to preserve the stability of the constitutional system.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, sitting as a five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice A.N. Ray and Justices H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, and Y.V. Chandrachud, delivered its judgement on 7 November 1975.
The Court unanimously upheld the Allahabad High Court’s finding that the Thirty-ninth Amendment was unconstitutional and struck down clause (4) of Article 329A, which placed the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial scrutiny.

Key Findings of the Judgement

1. Violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court held that the Thirty-ninth Amendment violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution by:
   • Destroying the rule of law.
   • Excluding judicial review, which is a fundamental feature of the Constitution.
   • Undermining the principle of free and fair elections, which is integral to democracy.
2. Equality Before Law (Article 14): The amendment created a special class of persons (Prime Minister, President, Vice President, and Speaker) whose elections could not be challenged in court. This discriminatory privilege violated the principle of equality before law guaranteed by Article 14.
3. Limitation on Parliament’s Amending Power: The judgement reaffirmed that Parliament’s power under Article 368 is not unlimited. It cannot enact amendments that damage or destroy the basic features of the Constitution.
4. Judicial Review as a Basic Feature: The Court held that judicial review of election disputes and legislative actions is an essential feature of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be taken away.
5. Free and Fair Elections as a Basic Feature: Free and fair elections were recognised as a cornerstone of democracy and part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
6. Rule of Law and Separation of Powers: The attempt to remove the election of high officials from judicial scrutiny violated both the rule of law and the separation of powers, two indispensable pillars of the Constitution.

Individual Opinions of the Judges

Although the judges concurred in striking down the amendment, they expressed their reasoning independently:

• Justice H.R. Khanna: Emphasised that democracy is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution and cannot survive without free and fair elections and judicial review.He stated that “the rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrariness.”
• Justice Y.V. Chandrachud: Asserted that Parliament cannot override the Constitution’s core values to protect a single individual’s interests.He famously observed that “the amending power is limited; it cannot destroy its source.”
• Justice K.K. Mathew and Justice M.H. Beg: Agreed that judicial review and democracy are essential components of the basic structure.
• Chief Justice A.N. Ray: Upheld the view that the amendment was invalid but offered a narrower interpretation, focusing on its discriminatory character.

Significance of the Judgement

The Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case holds immense significance in Indian constitutional and political history:

1. Reaffirmation of the Basic Structure Doctrine: The judgement solidified the Basic Structure Doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), ensuring that Parliament’s amending power remained limited.
2. Protection of Judicial Review: The decision preserved the judiciary’s power to review constitutional amendments and acts of Parliament, safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.
3. Preservation of Democracy: The ruling asserted that free and fair elections and rule of law are indispensable to India’s democratic structure.
4. Limitation on Political Power: It served as a check on the abuse of constitutional amendments for political or personal gain.
5. Foundation for Future Jurisprudence: The principles laid down were later cited in major cases such as Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).

Historical and Political Impact

The decision came during one of the most turbulent periods in India’s history — the Emergency (1975–1977) — when civil liberties were suspended, and political dissent was suppressed. The Supreme Court’s ruling, although delivered under considerable political pressure, reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution over the will of any single individual or government.
Following the end of the Emergency, the Janata Party Government repealed several Emergency-era amendments through the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978, restoring the democratic balance envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.