Constitutional Law

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

AIR 1975 SC 2299; 1975 Supp SCC 1

Facts

Raj Narain challenged Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election to the Lok Sabha from Rae Bareli in 1971.
The Allahabad High Court found her guilty of specified electoral corrupt practices and set aside her election.
While her appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Thirty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1975.
Article 329A(4) declared that elections of certain high constitutional office-holders, including the Prime Minister, could not be questioned before an ordinary court.
It also retrospectively removed the legal basis upon which Indira Gandhi’s election had been invalidated.
Parliament separately amended election laws with retrospective effect.
The Supreme Court had to determine whether Parliament could constitutionally validate the election and exclude judicial adjudication.

Whether Article 329A(4) violated the basic structure.
Whether free and fair elections form part of constitutional democracy.
Whether Parliament could decide the result of a specific pending election dispute.
Whether retrospective amendment of ordinary election law was valid.
Whether Indira Gandhi’s election remained invalid after the legal amendments.

Constitutional amendments remain subject to the basic-structure limitation.
Representative democracy requires genuine, periodic and legally regulated elections.
Free and fair elections, rule of law and equality are constitutional fundamentals.
Judicial adjudication of legal disputes cannot be replaced by a legislative declaration deciding one identified case.
Parliament may amend general election law retrospectively.
It cannot exercise judicial power by declaring the result of a particular dispute without applying general legal standards.

Article 329A(4) did not merely change the rules governing elections for the future.
It selected a particular category of office-holders and retrospectively declared their elections valid despite pending judicial proceedings.
The amendment supplied no objective legal standard by which the election was to be tested.
It effectively reversed the High Court’s judgment through constitutional declaration.
This undermined separation of powers because Parliament assumed the judicial function of deciding an individual dispute.
It also violated equality by granting special immunity to selected political office-holders.
Several judges expressed the basic-structure violation differently:
Justice Khanna emphasised free and fair elections;
Justice Chandrachud relied on sovereign democratic republican government and equality;
Justice Mathew focused upon the rule of law;
Chief Justice Ray discussed democracy and adjudicatory fairness.
The Court distinguished Article 329A(4) from Parliament’s retrospective amendments to the Representation of the People Act.
The ordinary amendments changed general legal standards applicable to the election dispute.
Parliament was competent to alter electoral law retrospectively, provided it did not directly exercise judicial power.
After applying the validly amended election law, the grounds on which the High Court had invalidated Indira Gandhi’s election no longer survived.

The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Article 329A(4).
It violated the basic structure by damaging free and fair elections, equality, rule of law and judicial adjudication.
Parliament could not declare a particular disputed election valid through constitutional amendment.
The retrospective amendments to ordinary election law were upheld.