Indira Nehru Gandhi, Raj Narain vs Raj Narain, Indira Nehru Gandhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1975 Supreme(SC) 440

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N.Ray : H.R.Khanna : K.K.Mathew : M.H.Beg : Y.V.Chandrachud
Indira Nehru Gandhi, Shri Raj Narain
Versus
Raj Narain, Indira Nehru Gandhi
Case No. : 887 , 909 of 1975
Date of Decision : 11/7/75
Advocates Appeared: Agarwal U.C. : Agarwala E.C. : Bera Sudhir : Bhagat H.K.L. : Bhandari K.P. : Bhushan Shanti : Chakravarty Sumitra : Chatterjee Pranab : De Niren : Dhebar R.H. : Dua K.C. : Dwivedi R.C. : Garg S.K. : Goyal J.P. : Gujadhur Madur : Gupta M.C. : Kaushal J.M. : Khanduja S.S. : Muhammad V.A.Seyid : Nair S.P. : Nayar S.P. : Parkhi C.K.Raina : Parwar T.N. : Prasad Yogeshar : Rao P.P. : Rao U.N. : Sachthey R.N. : Sen A.K. : Singh D.P. : Singh Raghunath : Singh Sripal : Sinha Lal Narain : Soloman B. : Srivastava R.C. : Verma Anjali

Headnote:
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 123(7), 8 (a) - Constitution Act, 1975 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 71, 22, 329A, 102, 329(b), 368, 329, 136, 102 (1) (e), 102, 14, 16, 31A, 31B , 31C, 105, 85 , 79, 85, 86, 100, 13(1), (2) , 329A (4) and (5) - Election Laws Act, 1975 - Grenville Act, 1868 - People Act, 1949 - English Representation of the People Act, 1949 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 491 , 22 , 85 - Emergency Powers Acts, 1939 - Amendment Act, 1975 – Section 10, 9, 8(b) - Election - Committed Corrupt Practice - Civil is cross objection of respondent - It was directed that both the appeals would be heard together - Appeals arise out of judgment of High court and was guilty of having committed corrupt practice by having obtained assistance of gazetted officers in furtherance of her election prospects - High court further found appellant guilty of corrupt practice committed by having obtained assistance of a gazetted officer for furtherance of her election prospects - High court held appellant to be disqualified for a period of six years from date of order - Court awarded costs of election petition to respondent – Constitution Act, 1975 contains three principal features - First, Article 71 has been substituted by a new Article 71 - New Article 71 states that subject to provisions of Constitution, Parliament may by law regulate any matter relating to or connected with election of a President or Vice-President including grounds on which such election may be questioned - Second feature is insertion of Article 329A in Constitution - Clause 4 of Article 329A is challenged in present appeals - Held, In regard to cross-appeal filed thought that a part of it escapes through crevices in Act but Court see no substance in that contention either – Court would like to add that findings recorded by High court in favour of Smt. Indira Gandhi are amply borne out by evidence to which our attention was drawn briefly by learned Counsel for parties - Expenses incurred by political party, together with expenses incurred by her are not shown to exceed prescribed ceiling - Apart from that, Act 58 of 1974 makes that issue academic - Finally, there is no merit in contention that constitutional amendment is bad because it was passed when some members of Parliament were in detention - Legality of detention orders cannot be canvassed in these appeals collaterally - And from a practical point of view, presence of 21 members of Lok Sabha and 10 members of Rajya Sabha who were in detention could not have made a difference to passing of amendment - In result, Court hold that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329A are unconstitutional and therefore void - Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Case Background: Appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 887 and 909 of 1975) arise from Allahabad High Court judgment declaring Indira Nehru Gandhi's election from Rae Bareli void due to corrupt practices under Section 123(7) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), involving assistance from gazetted officers (Yashpal Kapur and UP government officials); she was disqualified for 6 years under Section 8(a) RPA. [1000285550001] (!) [1000285550088]
Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975: Introduced Article 329A; Clause 4 retrospectively nullifies prior election laws for Prime Minister/Speaker elections, deems such elections valid despite prior court orders declaring them void, and voids those orders/findings; Clause 5 mandates Supreme Court dispose pending appeals/cross-appeals per Clause 4; Clause 6 overrides other constitutional provisions. [1000285550004][1000285550007][1000285550008][1000285550009][1000285550010]
Challenge to Article 329A(4): Clause 4 challenged as violating basic structure (democracy, free/fair elections, rule of law, judicial review, equality, separation of powers); constitutes judicial power exercise by constituent authority without law/norms, creates legal vacuum by nullifying prior laws/forums without substitute, validates election without adjudication. [1000285550015][1000285550016][1000285550017][1000285550018][1000285550019][1000285550056][1000285550057][1000285550058][1000285550059][1000285550060][1000285550061][1000285550062]
Ruling on Article 329A(4) & (5): Clauses (4) and (5) unconstitutional/void as they damage basic structure; destroy free/fair elections by abolishing forum/procedure without alternative, exercise judicial power sans norms/process, violate equality/rule of law/judicial review; Clause 4 non-severable. (!) [1000285550213][1000285550327] (!) [1000285550343]
Merits under RPA (pre/post-amendments): High Court findings on Yashpal Kapur's assistance reversed; he ceased service 14/01/1971 per gazette (Explanation 3, S.123(7) RPA via Act 40/1975); candidate status from nomination (1/02/1971, new S.79(b) RPA); no corrupt practice u/s 123(7). [1000285550088][1000285550090][1000285550095][1000285550096][1000285550216][1000285550221] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Rostrum/Loudspeaker Assistance: No corrupt practice u/s 123(7); state officials acted in official duty per instructions (Comptroller/Auditor General, 1959/1969 letters); proviso S.123(7) RPA (Act 40/1975) excludes such acts. [1000285550088][1000285550222] (!)
Cow/Calf Symbol: Not religious symbol; Election Commission allotment final; proviso S.123(3) RPA (Act 40/1975) deems allotted symbols non-religious. [1000285550156] (!)
Election Expenses: No excess over Rs.35,000 limit (S.77 RPA); party/third-party expenses excluded (Explanation 1, S.77 RPA via Act 58/1974); no proof of authorization/party agency; rostrum costs excluded (Explanation S.77 RPA, Act 40/1975). [1000285550102][1000285550103][1000285550110][1000285550116] (!) (!)
RPA Amendments Validity: Act 58/1974 & Act 40/1975 constitutional; retrospective operation valid; no basic structure damage (free/fair elections); ordinary legislation not subject to basic structure test; Ninth Schedule protection upheld. [1000285550122][1000285550132][1000285550133][1000285550137][1000285550151]
Parliament Session/Detentions: No invalidity; Article 122(1) bars procedural irregularity challenge; detentions not collateral attackable; no proof presence of detained MPs (21 Lok Sabha/10 Rajya Sabha) would alter amendment passage. [1000285550065][1000285550066][1000285550073][1000285550074]
Result: Appeal 887/1975 allowed (election valid); Cross-Appeal 909/1975 dismissed; no costs. (!) [1000285550253][1000285550344]

RAY, G.

(1) IN Civil No. 887 of 1975 the appellant is Indira Nehru Gandhi and the respondent is Raj Narain. Civil No. 909 of 1975 is the cross objection of the respondent. On 14/07/1975 it was directed that both the appeals would be heard together. The appeals arise out of the judgment of the High court of Allahabad r 29, 1970 and was guilty of having committed corrupt practice by having obtained the assistance of gazetted officers in furtherance of her election prospects. The High court further found the appellant guilty of corrupt practice committed under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act by having obtained the assistance of Yashpal Kapur a gazetted officer for the furtherance of her election prospects. The High court held the appellant to be disqualified for a period of six years from the date of the order as provided in S. 8 (a) of the 1951 Act. The High court awarded costs of the election petition to the respondent.

(2) IT should be stated here that th judgment disposes of both the appeals. Under directions of this court the original record of the High court was called for. The appeal filed by the respondent with regard to issues Nos. 2,4,6,7 and 9 formed the subject-matter of cross objections in Civil No. 909 of 1975. The cross objections are the same which form grounds of appeal filed by the respondent in the High court at Allahabad against an order of dismissal of Civil Misc. Writ No. 3761 of 1975 filed in the High court at Allahabad.

(3) THE Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 contains three principal features. First, Article 71 has been substituted by a new Article 71. The new Article 71 states that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Parliament may by law regulate any matter relating to or connected with the election of a President or Vice-President including the grounds on which such election may be questioned.

(4) THE second feature is insertion of Article 329A in the Constitution. Clause 4 of Article 329A is challenged in the present appeals. There are six clauses in Article 329A.

(5) THE first clause states that subject to the provisions of Ch. II of Part V [except sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of Article 102] no election to either House of Parliament of a person who holds the office of Prime Minister at the time of such election or is appointed as Prime Minister after such election; and to the House of the People of a person who holds the office of Speaker of that House at the time of such election or who is chosen as the Speaker for that House after such election ; shall be called in question, except before such authority [not being any such authority as is referred to in clause (b) of Article 329] or body and in such manner as may be provided fd for by or under any law made by Parliament and any such law may provide for all other matters relating to doubts and disputes in relation to such election including the grounds on which such election may be questioned.

(6) UNDER the second clause the validity of any such law as is referred to in clause (1) and the decision of any authority or body under such law ahall not be called in question in any court.

(7) THE third clause states that where any person is appointed as Prime Minister or, as the case may be, chosen to the office of the Speaker of the House of the People, while an election petition referred to in Article 329(b) in respect of his election to either House of Parliament or, as the case may be, to the House of the People is pending, such election petition shall abate upon such person being appointed as Prime Minister or, as the case may be, being chosen to the office of the Speaker of the House of the People, but such election may be called in question under any such law as is referred to in clause (1).

(8) THE fourth clause which directly concerns the present appeals states that no law made by P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1975 Supreme(SC) 440

Cases Referred (57)