Case Brief: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Election disputes involving Prime Minister and validity of the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act in Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain
• CITATION: AIR 1975 SC 2299: (1975) Supp SCC 1: (1976) SCR
• JUDGES: A.N Ray, C.J, H.R Khanna, K.K Mathew, M.H Beg and Y.V Chandrachud, J.J
• DATE OF DECISION: 7/11/1975

Facts of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

An appeal was filed by the appellant against the decision of the Allahabad High Court invalidating Mrs. Gandhi's election on the ground of corrupt practices. In the meanwhile, parliament enacted the 39th Constitutional Amendment to overcome the effect of the Honorable High Court judgment by withdrawing the jurisdiction of all courts over election disputes involving the Prime Minister. The amendment was made to validate, with retrospective effect, the election of the Prime Minister which was set aside by Allahabad High Court.

Issue in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

The question involved was the validity of the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975. The contention was that the clause in question wiped out not merely the High Court judgment but even the election and the law relating thereto.

Judgement in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

• The Court invalidated a clause because it violated the principle of free and fair elections, essential to the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Excluding Judicial Review in election disputes was deemed unconstitutional as it contradicted Article 14 (Right to Equality).
• The provisions were seen as arbitrary, undermining the basic structure and the rule of law.
• The Supreme Court identified additional basic features, including Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32, and Democracy involving free and fair elections.
• The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate cases on merits must not be compromised within a democratic Constitutional framework.
• Clause (4) of the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975, was deemed entirely unconstitutional and void due to its exclusion of judicial review in election disputes, which was considered detrimental to the Constitution's basic features.