Indira Gandhi V/S Raj Narain, 1975

JUDGES INVOLVED IN THE CASE –A.N. Ray (CJ) H.R. Khanna M.H. Beg K.K. Mathew INTRODUCTION This is a case regarding Election Disputes involving the Prime Minister and the purpose of passing the 39th Amendment of the Constitution. FACTS OF THE CASE In the parliamentary elections of 1971, the complainant was declared a successful candidate from the Rae Bareli constituency in Uttar Pradesh. She won the election by 1, 11,810 votes over her closest rival, Sri Raj Narain. Sri Raj Narain, Respondent No. 1 sponsored by the Samyukta Socialist Party, filed an election motion u /s 80 r / w p.100 of the Representation of the People Act in 1951 to challenge the election of the successful candidate to the Supreme Court von Allahabad upheld the challenge on two grounds and denied the other grounds. The learned judge also granted an absolute stay of 20 days. JUDGEMENT The Honorable Supreme Court applied the doctrine of the basic structure established in the Kesavananda Bharati case against the state of Kerala. It declared that clause 4 of Article 329- A can be repealed for violating the principle of free and fair elections, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and abolishes the forum without providing for the other forum to enter into the relative controversy the validity of the appellant's election and also prescribes that said controversy will not be governed by any electoral law and that the validity of said election will be absolute and, consequently, will not be susceptible to being assaulted, and extinguishes both the right and the resource to challenge the validity of the aforementioned choice. According to article 329 (b), electoral disputes must be presented to the authority established by law by the legislature. raised in an electoral petition is such that it can only be resolved through a judicial process, so clause 4 of article 329 A removes these rights and, therefore, must be repealed The court held that the constitutional validity of a statute depends entirely on the existence of the legislative power, and apart from the limitation laid down in Article 13 there is no other prohibition on the Legislature. According to Article 368 It is within the powers of Parliament to frame laws with regard to elections. Parliament has the power to indicate whether certain expenses can be included or excluded from electoral expenses, to adopt conclusive evidence regarding to matters of appointment, resignation or termination of service, to declare what may be considered a for- profit position, to declare what will and what will not constitute a corrupt practice Parliament has the power to enact what will be the reason for disqualification, to define "candidate". Likewise, given the retroactive effect of the legislative amendment, it is accepted as a valid exercise of legislative power. The retrospective application of a law would cause difficulties for some or other persons. This is inevitable. However, this is no reason to deny the legislature the power to enact retroactive law. In the case of a law that has retroactive effect, the theory is that the law was actually in force in the past and if the provisions of the law and general In their operation there can be no challenge for them due to discrimination or injustice just because of them retroactive effect. He enlisted the assistance of official Uttar Pradesh government officials, namely the district magistrate, the police superintendent, the executive engineer of public works and the engineer Hydel, for the construction of the tribes and the arrangement of the power supply for loudspeakers at during the meetings he addressed during his election campaign. He spent more than the prescribed amount of money during his election campaigns. The Supreme Court held that the word "candidate" in Section 123 (7) of the People's Representative (Amendment) Act, 1975, was defined as a person who submitted the nomination papers, later it was held that Indira Gandhi submitted her papers of nomination on February 1, 1971, and therefore any assistance he received from government officials before that date could not be considered a corrupt practice. . According to Section 83 (1) (b) and 123 (6) of the People's Representatives Act of 1951, Voluntary expenses of friends, relatives or sympathizers and expenses incurred by a candidate The party of the party without any request or authorization of the candidate has never been considered an expense by the candidate himself. The Court also held that, according to Section 77 of the People's Representation Act of 1951, the expenses incurred by a political party in connection with the election of the party's candidates are not part of the candidate's electoral expenses, in the same way Participation in the program of activities organized by a political party will not be within the electoral expenses of the candidate of the party. So, the five judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its orders regarding the above mentioned issues, in accordance with the reasons mentioned above in the Application Section. It was held that clause ‘4’ and ‘5’ of Article 329 A was unconstitutional as being violative of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974 & Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 were considered to be legal, perfectly constitutional and free from all infirmities. Election of Indira Gandhi, from her constituency Rae Bareli, was considered to be valid. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment given by the Allahabad High Court, it removed all corrupt charges levied against Indira Gandhi and acquitted her, thereby making her election valid. CRITICAL ANALYSIS After a thorough examination of the justification given by the judges in this particular case, and after reviewing the background of this case, I personally believe that the Judgment, although it was academically and theoretically correct, but in practice and for reasons of Justice, Fairness and Good Conscience was a failed failure. Corrupt practices as mentioned in Section 123 (7) of the People's Representation Act of 1951, and thus annulled his election, also prohibited him from participating in elections for the next 6 years. Sinha, and then appealed to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, she very ingeniously imposed the emergency on the nation and then got many of her member opponents detained on remand, by doing this she was able to pass the Thirty-Ninth Amendment Act of the Constitution with few difficulties. It also passed the 2 People's Representatives (Amendment) Act 1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act 1975, (will now be referred to as Amendment Laws 1974, 1975). These three major amendments were clearly made to remove all grounds for which she was found guilty in the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court in its ruling held that the Amendment Laws 1974, 1975, were constitutionally valid as they were legislative rules and the parliament had powers to amend them, but the judges should have noted that these amendments were made for the sole purpose of eliminating everything type of charges from the head of Indira Gandhi. 1 Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr on 7 November, 1975 2 Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain , Judgement Analysis