Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain 1975, Issues, Judgment, Rule of Law

Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975), also known as the Election Case, was a landmark Supreme Court case that shaped India’s constitutional history by strengthening the rule of law, judicial review, and basic structure doctrine. Originating from allegations of electoral malpractice against the serving Prime Minister, it raised critical questions about fair elections, constitutional amendments, and limits on parliamentary power. The case became central to debates on democracy, executive accountability, and constitutional supremacy during the politically turbulent period of the 1975 Emergency.

Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain Issue Involved

The Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain case began after allegations of electoral malpractice against Indira Gandhi following her 1971 Lok Sabha election victory.

• Indira Nehru Gandhi, then Prime Minister, contested the 1971 general election as the Congress candidate.
• Raj Narain, her opponent, contested on the opposition ticket and accused her of using government machinery illegally.
• He filed an election petition before the Allahabad High Court claiming violations of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.
• The High Court held her guilty under Section 123(7) of the RPA, declaring her election void.
• She was disqualified from holding the Prime Minister’s office and barred from contesting elections for six years.
• Indira Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted conditional stay: she could attend Parliament but could not vote.
• During this period, the Union Government proclaimed a national Emergency.
• The 39th Constitutional Amendment was passed, inserting Article 329A to prevent judicial scrutiny of elections of the Prime Minister and Speaker.
• This amendment attempted to remove Supreme Court jurisdiction in her ongoing case.
• The amendment’s constitutional validity itself became a major issue before the Court.
• Major Questions Before the Court were:
  • Whether Article 329A(4), inserted through the 39th Amendment, was constitutionally valid.
  • Whether Parliament had the authority to immunize the election of the Prime Minister from judicial review.
  • Whether excluding courts from examining election disputes violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • Whether the Allahabad High Court judgment declaring Indira Gandhi’s election void should stand.
  • Whether the alleged electoral misconduct constituted corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act.
  • Whether evidence presented against the Prime Minister adequately proved misuse of government resources.

Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain Judgment

The Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain judgment reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and restored democratic accountability.

• The Supreme Court held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Judicial review was reaffirmed as a core constitutional feature that Parliament cannot remove through amendments.
• Article 329A(4), created by the 39th Amendment, was declared unconstitutional as it violated basic structure principles.
• The Court relied on Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) to emphasize that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to destroy its fundamentals.
• Rule of law was reaffirmed as essential to democracy, preventing arbitrary exclusion of courts from election disputes.
• After examining the evidence, the Supreme Court found insufficient proof that Indira Gandhi had misused government machinery.
• Her election was declared valid, overturning the Allahabad High Court’s ruling.
• The case became a defining moment in limiting legislative overreach and protecting electoral integrity.

‹ ›

What is the Rule of Law?

Rule of Law means every individual, including those in positions of power, is bound by law, and no authority can act arbitrarily. It ensures equality before the law, legal accountability, and independent judicial review. In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that rule of law is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and Parliament cannot override it through amendments aimed at protecting elected leaders from scrutiny.

39th Constitutional Amendment Act 1975

The 39th Constitutional Amendment Act 1975 attempted to prevent judicial scrutiny of elections to high constitutional offices.

• Passed during the Emergency to safeguard the Prime Minister’s position.
• Inserted Article 329A into the Constitution, specifically exempting elections of the Prime Minister, President, Vice-President, and Speaker from court challenges.
• Intended to nullify the ongoing case against Indira Gandhi by removing Supreme Court jurisdiction.
• It declared that disputes concerning these elections would be decided by a Parliamentary body rather than courts.
• The amendment was challenged for violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court struck down clause (4) of Article 329A as unconstitutional.
• It became a key example of limits on Parliament’s amending power under the basic structure doctrine.

State of Emergency (1975-77)

During the pendency of the case, the government declared a national Emergency. This political context significantly influenced the legal landscape. The Emergency environment enabled the swift passage of the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act 1975, which sought to curtail judicial scrutiny over elections during an already sensitive political crisis.