- CJI A.N. RayFavored (Struck Down Clause)
- Justice H.R. KhannaFavored (Struck Down Clause - Basic Structure)
- Justice K.K. MathewFavored (Struck Down Clause - Basic Structure)
- Justice M.H. BegFavored (Struck Down Clause - Basic Structure)
- Justice Y.V. ChandrachudFavored (Struck Down Clause - Basic Structure)
- Constitution of India (Articles 14, 71, 136, 141, 329, 329-A(4), 368)
- Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975
- Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975
This case arose after the Allahabad High Court found Prime Minister Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices in the 1971 Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli and declared her election void. This judgment disqualified her from holding office for six years. While her appeal was pending in the Supreme Court, Parliament passed the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975.
This amendment introduced Article 329-A into the Constitution. Clause (4) of Article 329-A stated that no law regarding election petitions would apply to the election of the Prime Minister or Speaker, declared any such pending proceedings void, and asserted that their election could not be called into question except before a special authority designated by Parliament, effectively placing their elections beyond judicial review and nullifying the High Court judgment retroactively. The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding the validity of this constitutional amendment.
ARGUMENTS
Respondent's Case (Raj Narain / Shanti Bhushan)
- Clause (4) of Article 329-A violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution established in Kesavananda Bharati.
- It destroyed essential features like free and fair elections, judicial review, separation of powers, and the rule of law (equality before law - Article 14).
- The amendment was not truly an amendment but a legislative judgment or decree, usurping judicial power.
- Making the Prime Minister's election immune from judicial scrutiny negated democratic principles.
Appellant's Case (Indira Gandhi / Govt.)
- Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is plenary and unlimited, allowing it to change any part, including election laws and judicial review scope.
- The Basic Structure doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati was vague and not clearly defined.
- Article 329 already bars courts from interfering in electoral matters except through an election petition presented as per law made by Parliament. The amendment was consistent with this.
- The amendment was necessary for political stability and to ensure the smooth functioning of high offices.
Case Progression Timeline
General Election
Indira Gandhi wins the Lok Sabha seat from Rae Bareli, defeating Raj Narain.
March 1971Election Petition Filed
Raj Narain files an election petition in the Allahabad High Court alleging corrupt practices by Indira Gandhi.
April 1971Allahabad High Court Judgment
Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha finds Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices, declares her election void, and disqualifies her for 6 years.
June 12, 1975National Emergency Declared
Following political unrest after the judgment, a National Emergency is proclaimed.
June 25, 197539th Amendment Passed
Parliament passes the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, inserting Article 329-A to protect the PM's election from judicial review and void the HC judgment.
August 10, 1975Supreme Court Hearing
A 5-judge bench hears Indira Gandhi's appeal against the HC verdict and Raj Narain's challenge to the 39th Amendment.
August - November 1975Supreme Court Judgment
SC unanimously strikes down Clause (4) of Article 329-A as violative of the Basic Structure, but upholds Indira Gandhi's election based on retrospective changes to election law.
November 7, 1975The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Clause (4) of Article 329-A (inserted by the 39th Amendment) as unconstitutional and void. All five judges, writing separate opinions, agreed that this clause violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
They held that features like judicial review, free and fair elections based on democratic principles, and the rule of law (equality) were essential parts of the Constitution's basic framework, which could not be abrogated by Parliament even using its amending power under Article 368. However, the Court upheld Indira Gandhi's election based on retrospective amendments made to the Representation of the People Act by the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, which removed the legal basis for the High Court's findings of corrupt practices.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
This case marked the first major application of the Basic Structure Doctrine established just two years earlier in Kesavananda Bharati. The judges reasoned that Clause (4) was not a genuine constitutional amendment but rather a legislative decree or judgment that directly decided an election dispute in favor of one individual, thereby usurping judicial power. Justice Khanna reiterated his stance from Kesavananda that democracy, implying free and fair elections, was part of the basic structure. Justice Mathew emphasized that judicial review in election disputes was crucial. Justice Chandrachud highlighted the violation of the separation of powers and the principle of equality (Article 14) inherent in the rule of law. By striking down a constitutional amendment based on the Basic Structure doctrine, the Court decisively asserted judicial supremacy in interpreting and protecting the core tenets of the Constitution against parliamentary encroachment.
FINAL VERDICT
- Clause (4) of Article 329-A, inserted by the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975, was declared unconstitutional and void as it violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
- The Basic Structure Doctrine (established in Kesavananda Bharati) was applied and reaffirmed.
- Features like democracy, free and fair elections, rule of law, equality, and judicial review were considered part of the Basic Structure.
- Indira Gandhi's appeal against the Allahabad High Court judgment was allowed based on the retrospective application of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, thus upholding her election.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 does not extend to abrogating the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Free and fair elections, judicial review of election disputes, the rule of law (implying equality), and the separation of powers are essential features of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be destroyed by a constitutional amendment. An amendment that effectively decides an election dispute through legislative fiat, excluding judicial review, violates these basic features.