Indira Gandhi v.

Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

Symbiosis Law College, Pune

Constitutional Law

3 Year LL.B, Semester-1

Internal-1
Case Comment

Name- Vidit Mehra

P.R.N- 15010122030

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

Index

1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Issues of the case
4. Rules of the Law
5. Explanation of the Issues
6. Conclusion
7. Critical Analysis

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain

1975 (Supp.) SCC 1
IntroductionThe very famous case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain which became one of the
landmark cases in the history of India involved a lot of power tussle and political
force in action. The issue dates back to 1971 when 5thLokSabha elections were
held from March 1 to March 10 in which Indira Gandhi campaigned and won
elections with a huge margin of securing 352 seats out of 518. In her opposition,
Ram ManoharLohiasSSP candidate Raj Narain was contesting in the constituency
of Rae Bareili in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
After losing the election, he filed the case against Indira Gandhi, accusing her of
election rigging and other corrupt practices in the general elections. On 24th
April, 1971, he challenged the validity of elections in the Honble High Court,
Allahabad. The petition mentioned that Smt. Indira Gandhi has violated the basic
code of conduct and violated the election code enshrined in Representation of
Peoples act, 1951. The petition also alleged several Gazetted government officials
including YashpalKapoor, armed and police forces were wrongfully used by Smt.
Indira Gandhi in her campaigning.
The charges went to liquor and blanket distribution among prospective voters and
exceeding the campaign expense prescribed by R.P.A, 1951. This case was
decided on November 7, 1975by the Honble High Court of Allahabad and the
learned judge, acting under Section 8-A declared that the candidate- Indira
Gandhi is disqualified from the election for next six years from the day of
judgment which was November 7, 1975.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

Honble High Court of Allahabad admitted few facts of this case, which were1. Smt. Indira Gandhi contested for a seat in LokSabha elections in 1971.
2. That she availed assistance from various government agencies and officials
and also indulged in luring voters by distributing blankets and liquor to the
voters.
3. That she filed the nomination papers to be a candidate for election in the
Rae Bareli constituency on 1st February, 1971.

BackgroundAfter getting defeated in election against Smt. Indira Gandhi, Raj Narain
filed an election petition against her on 24th April, 1971, challenging Prime
Ministers election. The court admitted the case and hearing began on 15th
July, 1971 before the Justice BN Lokur. In August 1971, Raj Narain asked to
make amendments in his original pleading so as to put more charges on
Smt. Indira Gandhi. Also, he applied under Order XI Rule 1 and Order XI
Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code for leave to deliver interrogatories in
writing the examination of Indira Gandhi and for a direction to her to make
discovery on oath of the documents which are have been in her possession
or power relating to the question arising in the petition. The single bench
judgement which was passed by Justice W Broome on 14th September,
1971 regarding the above matter, allowed the leave to deliver
interrogatories in writing for the examination of Indira Gandhi but subject
to a few questions only but he disallowed the amendments to the original
pleading as it would amount to amendments to the material facts.
In 1972, Raj Narain went to the Honble Supreme Court against the above
judgement of Honble High Court. In 24th June, 1972 a bench of 5 judges of
Honble Supreme Court allowed some of the interrogatory questions put
forward by Raj Narain and disallowed the rest. Also, the bench allowed him
to make amendments and produce new evidence regarding

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

YashpalKapoor who acted as a private citizen or as a Gazetted officer

during the campaigning of Indira Gandhi in Rae Barely.
The case went on through 1973 and 1974 and on 5th April 1974, the Honble
Supreme Court granted leave for the third appeal during the hearings. This
time it was Indira Gandhis claim of privilege of not to produce the blue
book in the court which is rules and instructions for the protection of PM
when on tour or travel. After this on 24th January 1975 the Honble
Supreme Court quashed High Courts verdict to produce the blue book
before the court. However, the third judge, Justice JagmohanLalSinha was
directed to secure affidavit about disclosures of the blue book so that he
can decide whether or not to admit parts of it as evidence.
Meanwhile, in other related case, the verdict impacted the Indira Gandhis
case. On 3rd October 1974, a Supreme Court bench ruled that election
expense incurred by anyone with the consent of the candidate is an
authorized expense and had to be included in the candidates report on
election expenses.Thereafter, Raj Narain moved a writ petition challenging
the 1974 Act amending Representation of Peoples Act and Justice Sinha
declared that it was in connection with this case. On 18th March 1975,
Indira Gandhi appeared in the court.
The next big and landmark decision was given by High Court whereby it
declared the election of Smt. Indira Gandhi as Void on 12th June 1975. It
observed that Smt. Indira Gandhi took help of ShriYashpalKapoor, Gazetted
officer of Government of India, the District Magistrate and Superintendent
of Police, Rae Bareli, the Executive Engineer, PWD and the Engineer Hydel
Department for her election campaigning and thus committing corrupt
practices under Section 123 (7) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951
but it also rejected Raj Narains plea on the constitutionality of 1974 Act.
After this verdict, Indira Gandhis counsel moved for a stay and Justice
Sinha gave an unconditional stay of 20 days. She also challenged the

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

unseating verdict against her by the High Court and seeked absolute
stay on the same.
The vacation judge, Justice VR Krishna Iyer on 24th June 1975 granted a
conditional stay which gave a blanket cover on electoral disqualification but
Indira Gandhi was debarred from participating and voting in the LokSabha
and could not draw salary as a member.
The issues which came out from this case and judgement which wereIssue 1:
Validity of Clause 4 of Article 329 A of constitution of India
Clause 4 destroys the basic structure and the constitution of the house which
passed the constitution (39th Amendment) act is illegal.

Issue 2:
Constitutional validity of Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1975
and Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975
These Acts destroy or damage basic structure or basic features.

Issue 3:
Validity of election contested by Indira Gandhi
She misused government authorities, took help of Gazetted officers of Uttar
Pradesh, District magistrate, Superintendent of Police, executive engineer and
arrangement of loudspeakers in public gathering. She also spent more money
than prescribed during her campaigning.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

The following rules were applied when judgement was decided-

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Article 329(b) of The Constitution of India, 1949.

Section 123(7) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974.
Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975.
Article 368 of The Constitution of India, 1949.

When these rules were applied to the issues raised, the following was decidedValidity of Clause 4 of Article 329 A of constitution of India

Honble Supreme Court applied the basic structure which was laid down in
KesavanandaBharati v. State of Kerala. It also said that Clause (4) of Article 329 A
is liable to struck down on the grounds that it violates the basic principle of free
and fair elections which is a part of basic structure of the Constitution. This also
abolishes the forum without providing the other platform where such disputes
could be tried and it further said that dispute shall not be governed by any
election law and validity of such election shall be absolute which abolishes both
the right and remedy to challenge the validity of the aforesaid elections. The
nature of dispute which arose is such that it can only be tried through judicial
process. Clause 4 of Article 329 A takes away such right and therefore it should be
struck down.

Constitutional validity of Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1975

and Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975

It was alleged by Raj Narain that many opposition leaders were put in preventive
detention who could not participate in the Parliamentary Proceedings during the
time when thirty ninth amendment was passed therefore the act should be struck

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

down.
The court observed that this matter relates to the internal matter of both the
Houses of Parliament and Court cannot go into the details of whether the sitting
of the Houses were constitutionally valid or not. It also observed that The
President while performing his duty did not authorize any detention under Article
352 and 359 respectively.

In the matter of Constitutional validity the statue depends entirely on the

existence of the legislative powers and apart from the limitation laid down by
Article 13, there is no other prohibition and it was well within the powers of
Article 368 that Parliament framed laws regarding to elections. Parliament also
has powers to restrict the limits on election expense along with stating which
expenses can fall under the purview of the same and which cannot. It can also
decide what is an office of profit, what amounts to corruption and status of the
member can be decided by Parliament itself. These are all legislative policies and
functions which do not come under the basic structure. If there has been
retrospective affect to legislative amendment is accepted as a normal exercise
which is tough to implement but inevitable. In such cases wherein the law has
retrospective effect and if law was operational in the past, there can be no
discrimination or unfairness on this ground of being retrospective in nature.

Validity of election contested by Indira Gandhi

According to Honble Supreme Court, the word candidate in Section 123(7) of

the Representative of Peoples Act, 1975 was defined as a person who files
nomination papers. As per the information supplied, it was observed that Smt.
Indira Gandhi filed her papers on 1st February 1971 and therefore any help which
she allegedly took from various government agencies before that date could not
amount to a corrupt practice.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

As far as the status quo of ShriYashpalKapoor is concerned, he filed his resignation

before the President of India on 13th January, 1971 which was accepted on 25th
January, 1971. Smt. Indira Gandhi appointedShriYashpalKapoor as her election
agent on 1st February, 1971 by which he was no longer a Gazetted Officer of
Government of India. It was observed that taking help from him did not fall under
the gambit of any corrupt practices. Raj Narain also alleged that
ShriYashpalKapoor made several speeches in favour of Smt. Indira Gandhi during
7th January to 25th January 1971 but Court could not find any evidence in support
of his claim.

Now, as per Section 83(1)(b) and 123(6) of Representative Peoples Act, 1951,
voluntary expenditure by friends, relatives, sympathizers or expenditure incurred
by candidates party without any request or authorization by candidate has never
been deemed to be an expenditure by the candidate itself. The court also held
that as per Section 77 of Representative Peoples Act, 1951, expenditure incurred
by a party in connection to any election is not considered as an expense of
candidate. Similarly, any activity organized by the political party will not fall under
the election expense of the candidate.
ConclusionThe five judge bench of Honble Supreme Court passed its judgement on 7th
November, 1975. In accordance with issues raised and rules applied by the Court,
it was decided that Clause 4 and 5 of Article 329 A was unconstitutional as being violative
of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Representation of the Peoples (Amendment) Act, 1974 and Election Laws
(Amendment), 1975 were considered legal and perfectly constitutional.
Election of Smt. Indira Gandhi from her constituency Rae Bareli was
considered to be Valid.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

The Honble Supreme Court set aside the verdict given by High Court of
Allahabad and removed all the corruption charges put on Smt. Indira Gandhi
and acquitting her thus, making her election valid.

Critical Analysis

After examining this case thoroughly and observing the complete background of
politics and power, it can rightly be observed that judgement was good on the
jurisprudential aspect but it failed to strike the cord of justice and failed to set
exemplary judgement in the history of this country. It could have been used as a
turning point in the legal world because Constitution was relatively new in 1971.
It could have set standard and made people believe in the justice system of this
new democracy which was then reviving from many teething problems. It can be
said with the due respect to the Honble Judges and Supreme Court of India that
the judgement failed on the grounds of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
Our Constitution says that every person is equal in the Court of law but here Smt.
Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister was acquitted of many serious charges
because of her position and political powers and was allowed to walk scot free.
The High Court of Allahabad very rightly observed the role of Gazetted Officer,
ShriYashpalKapoor, Army and Airforce during her election campaigning and
framed charges against her under Section 123(7) of Representation of Peoples
Act, 1951 and henceforth barring her from contesting any elections for next six
years and terming her election as void. This was a big judgement which shook the
roots of political arena and gave a new, fresh hope to the people of India and
made their belief stronger in the Judiciary.

Smt. Indira Gandhi then took the way of unconditional stay order from Justice
JagmohanLalSinha and appealed to the Supreme Court and unconventionally
imposed Emergency in India and got rid of many opposition members, censored

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

press, and suspended some Constitutional rights in the name of national security.
Non-Congress governments were dismissed throughout the India and put her
main opposition leaders in preventive detention. She easily passed Thirty Ninth
Amendment Act without much difficulty. She also passed Representation of the
Peoples (Amendment) Act, 1974 and Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975
which now referred as Amendment Act 1974 and 1975.
These three amendments were made in haste to remove all the grounds on which
High Court of Allahabad found her guilty of corruption. The Honble Supreme
Court overlooked a fact that these amendments were made with a sole reason of
removing all the charges put on Smt. Indira Gandhi while delivering the
judgement in which it said that Amendment Acts of 1974 and 1975 were
constitutionally valid as they were legislative and Parliament had power to amend
them. Also, these amendments were never debated because all the opposition
leaders were put in preventive detention which restricted them from voting
against the amendment or voicing their opinion over them. With the due respect
to the Honble Supreme Court, I would like to state that it was ignorant on the
part of the Court to say that it was a matter of Parliament and Court cannot do
anything about it. The duty of Honble Supreme Court is to uphold the
Constitution and it is the Guardian of the same. Here Constitution was tempered
with ill-intention in illegal manner. Being the watchdog, terming this out of their
Jurisdiction was a sign of some politically motivated pressure.

The misuse of the power by Smt. Indira Gandhi for her own benefits and every
charge which was put on her was taken care by this Amendment Act of 1974 and
1975. She also changed the definition of candidate. The original definition of a
candidate in Section 79(b) of the 1951 Act until the Amendment was- Candidate
means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a
candidate in any election and any such person shall deemed to have been a
candidate as from time when, with election in prospect he should remain as a
candidate.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015

This definition was replaced by the Amendment Act of 1974 and 1975 asCandidate means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated
as a candidate at any election.

She also made sure that the resignation of ShriYashpalKapoor was held valid from
an earlier date by Section 8(b) of the Amendment Act, 1975 by introducing
Explanation 3 at the end of Section 123(7) of Peoples Representative Act. These
changes helped her to show that she did not take the help of ShriYashpalKapoor
in the capacity of Gazetted Officer but as a private citizen.

With the due respect to the Honble Supreme Court, I observe that the judgement
lacked substance and benefitted the guilty who misused the chair and amended
laws on which she was proven guilty. Raj Narain was made to wait for years with
unwanted reasons and rationale.
The only good which came out of this judgement was that the Honble Supreme
Court struck down the Clause 4 and 5 of Article 329 A as being in violation of the
basic structure and upheld the Constitution.
Thereby, I conclude my case comment by saying that Judiciary has a lot on its
plate. It should not forget that there will be a Ratio Decidendi which will establish
a legal principle for the future and Obiter Dictum by which other matters which
resembles the facts of this case will follow the same binding principle of
precedence. Exemplary justice was needed that time which could not be
delivered and henceforth, guilty walked scot free and misused government
resources and took advantage of the chair. The true judgement in the favour of
Raj Narain would have set example for political arena in which the rule of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience could have been set up. Given the present situation
of politics, the favorable judgement in this case would have created a feeling of
moral trust amongst the political parties who are falling short on this very basic
issue day by day.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain |Vidit Mehra|SLS, Pune|August, 2015