Alok Singh
Introduction
The instant case arose out of an election petition and subsequent challenge to the Thirty-ninth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975. The petition related to allegations of corrupt practices committed by the appellant, Indira Nehru Gandhi, during the electoral process.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice A.N. Ray along with Justices H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, and Y.V. Chandrachud, and addressed not only the substantive findings on corrupt practices as determined by the High Court of Allahabad but also the broader constitutional issue of whether the retrospective validation of elections under Clause (4) of Article 329A was tenable under the basic structure doctrine.
Facts and Procedural History
In the 1971 election, Indira Gandhi won the Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareilly, which was challenged by her rival, Raj Narain. He had challenged on the grounds of electoral malpractices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Allahabad High Court set aside her election for corrupt practices, notably using government machinery for election work and exceeding authorised limits. This decision was later appealed to the Supreme Court by Indira Gandhi. While the matter was under appeal, in response, Parliament had enacted amendments and altered definitions (for example, who qualifies as a “candidate”) and, crucially, introduced Clause (4) of Article 329A. This clause aimed to validate an election by stating that any law or judicial ruling on election petitions concerning candidates in certain high offices, such as the Prime Minister or the Speaker, would be deemed inoperative.
Legal Issues
- Whether a constitutional amendment can immunise the election of the PM/Speaker from judicial review, directly validating Indira Gandhi’s election.
- Whether Parliament could retrospectively amend definitions of “corrupt practice” to affect pending proceedings.
- Could the legislature assume for itself a power (deciding election disputes) reserved for the judiciary under the Constitution?
- Whether, under the amended law, the acts formerly deemed corrupt practices remained so.
Court’s Reasoning and Holdings
The Court, reaffirming the “basic structure” doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461, held that while the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution (Article 368) is broad, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure, which includes free and fair elections, rule of law, judicial review, etc. It stated that even Parliament cannot remove or limit judicial review, especially when a law seeks to prevent the courts from examining the legality or validity of election outcomes. This is particularly important in cases that are as clearly defined as Article 329A(4).
The Court held that through the insertion of Article 329A(4) and removing judicial powers in relation to the election of the Prime Minister, the Parliament usurped the judicial function. This amounted to “legislation“, violating equality and legal process (Article 14), and fatally compromising the independence of the judiciary. The provision, therefore, was held unconstitutional and struck down.
The Court distinguished between amending a general rule (which Parliament can do) and legislating for a specific controversy or individual dispute, which is a judicial power and cannot be exercised by Parliament. The amendments were assessed as general in nature, applying to all, and not merely to Indira Gandhi. The Court held that Parliament can modify statutes retrospectively and that such amendments, if constitutional, will apply to all pending matters, including the current case.
The High Court’s conclusion of corrupt practices could not stand. By applying the law as retrospectively amended, the Court found that the acts previously considered corrupt (involving government officials, expenditure, etc.) were no longer such under the statute as amended.
Analysis and Significance
In this instant case, the Court stated that Parliament is supreme, but its power is subject to inviolable constitutional limitations. Any attempts to immunise individuals or create ad hoc exceptions for political expediency will be subject to strict scrutiny.
The decision is an example of the Court drawing a clear and inviolable boundary between the powers of the Parliament and the judiciary. It established that the function of adjudicating disputes, including election petitions, is an essentially judicial function and must be insulated from executive or legislative interference.
The Court was careful to note that while general retrospective statutes are permissible (and often necessary), their application must be uniform and non-arbitrary. Laws targeting specific individuals or outcomes are open to challenge under Article 14.
Conclusion
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, the Supreme Court highlighted that even under the ambit of constituent power, the legislature cannot overstep into the domain of judicial decision-making. Especially where the fundamental principles of free and fair elections and the rule of law are at stake. The judgment remains a cornerstone for the interpretation of constitutional amendments, ensuring that alterations affecting the very fabric of democracy are made.
Author: Alok Singh, Law Student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here