Page |1

THE GLOCAL UNIVERSITY SAHARANPUR

THE PROJECT TOPIC

OF
constitution
ON
THE CASE—Indira Nehru Gandhi
v
raj narain

ENROLLMENT NO. GU17R0306

SEMESTER 4 RD

SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED
TO

pg. 1
 Page |2

SALIMAN Pro. ayaz ahmed sir

TABLE OF CONTEX
INTRODCTION

LIST OF ABBRIVATION

LIST OF CASES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

ISSUES

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

pg. 2
 Page |3

CONCLUSION

PRAYERS
LIST OF ABBERIVATION

1. AIR …………………….. All India Reporter

2. SC …………………........ Supreme Court
3. HC…………………….... High Court
4. SCC ……………………... Supreme Court Cases
5. & …………………….... And
6. S. ……………………… Section
7. V. ……………………… Versus
8. U/a ……………………… Under Article
9. U/S ……………………… Under Section
10. UOI ……………………… Union of India

pg. 3
 Page |4

LIST OF CASES

 Keshwananda Bharti v State of Kerala

 Mjnerua Mills Ltd. V. Union of India

pg. 4
 Page |5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTION
 The Constitution of India

STATUTES REFERRED
 The Indian Penal Code – 1860
 The Criminal Procedure Code

pg. 5
 Page |6

INTRODUCTION
This is a case regarding Election Disputes involving the Prime Minister and Purpose of 39th
Amendment of the Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
In this case, an appeal was filed by the appellant against the decision of the Allahabad High
Court invalidating Smt. Indira Gandhi’s election on the ground of corrupt practices. In the
meantime, the Parliament passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which introduced and
added a new Article 392A to the Constitution of India.
It was stated by this Article 392A that the election of the Prime Minster and the Speaker cannot
be challenged in any court in the country. It can be rather challenged before a committee
formed by the Parliament itself.
Although the Supreme Court validated the election of Indira Gandhi but declared the 39th
Amendment to be unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure of the constitution.
The 39th Amendment was made to validate with retrospective effect the election of the then
Prime Minister which was set aside by the Allahabad High Court.

pg. 6
 Page |7

ISSUE OF THE CASE

1. Whether, the main question involved in the case was of the validity of clause (4) of the
Constitution 39th Amendment Act, 1975. The contention was that this clause in
question not only wiped out the High Court judgement but also the election and the law
relating thereto.
2. Whether or not Clause 4 of Article 329 A of the Constitution of India, was
constitutionally valid?
3. Whether or not, Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, was constitutionally valid?
4. Whether or not, the election of Indira Gandhi was void?
5. Whether or not the validity of clause (4) of the Contitution 39 th Amendment Act, 1975.

pg. 7
 Page |8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
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.

1. Whether or not Clause 4 of Article 329 A of the Constitution of India,

was constitutionally valid?
Yes, It was held that clause ‘4’ and ‘5’ of Article 329 A is liable to be struck down on the ground
that it violates the principle of free and fair elections which is a part of the basic structure of the
constitution. The exclusion of judicial review in election disputes in this manner resulted in
damaging the Basic Structure. It was unconstitutional as being violate of the basic structure of
the Indian Constitution.

2. Whether or not, Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974

and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, was constitutionally
valid?
Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974; Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975
were considered to be legal, perfectly constitutional and free from all infirmities.

3. Whether or not the validity of clause (4) of the Contitution 39 th

Amendment Act, 1975.
Yes, The Supreme Court held that clause(4) of the constitution 39 th Amendment Act, 1975 as
unconstitutional and void on the ground that it was outright denial of the Right toEquality
enshrined in Article 14, it was held by the Court that these provision were arbitrary and were
calculated to damaged and destroy the rule of Law.

pg. 8
 Page |9

4. Whether or not, the election of Indira Gandhi was void?

No, Election of Indira Gandhi, from her constituency Rae Bareli, was considered to be valid.
The Supreme Court in this case, added the following features as ‘Basic Features’ to the list of
basic features laid down in Keshwananda’s case. These are-
1. Rule of law
2. Democracy, that implies free and fair elections
3. Judicial Review
4. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under article 32.

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.

Keshwananda Bharti v State of Kerala

There are 11 separate judgements of each judge, however the summarized form of the same is-
Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of
the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f)
and 31 of the Constitution. He prayed that the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963
(Act 1 of 1964) as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969 (Act 35 of 1969)
be declared unConstitutional, ultra vires and void.
The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act came into force on November 5, 1971, the
Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act came into force on April 20, 1972 and the
Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act came into force on June 9, 1972. The effect of the
Twenty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution was that it inserted the following Acts in the
Ninth Schedule to the Constitution:
The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Kerala Act 35 of 1969).
The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 25 of 1971).
The petitioner then moved an application for urging additional grounds and for amendment of
the writ petition in order to challenge the above Constitutional amendments.
Before proceeding with the main task, judges review : what was decided in I.C. Golak Nath v.
State of Punjab [1967] 2 S.C.R. 762 ? In order to properly appreciate that case, it is necessary
first to have a look at Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar [1952]
S.C.R. 89 and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1965] 1 S.C.R. 933.

pg. 9
 P a g e | 10

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which inserted inter alia Articles 31A and 31B in
the Constitution was the subject matter of decision

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The clause of struck down by the Court on the ground that it violated free and fair elections
which was an essential feature that formed the Basic Stuctute of teh Indian Constitution. The
exclusion of judicial review in election disputes in this manner resulted in damaging the Basic
Structure.
The Supreme Court held clause (4) of the Constitution 39th Amendment Act, 1975 as
unconstitutional and void on the ground that it was outright denial of the Right to Equality
enshrined in Article 14, It was held by the Court that these provision were arbitrary and were
calculated to damaged and destroy the Rule of Law.
Justice H.R. Khanna held, that the democracy is the Basic Structure of the Constitution and it
includes free and fair election whcih cannot be violated.
The Supreme Court in this case, added the following feature as ‘Basic Features” to the list of
basic features laid down in Keshavananda’s Case. These are –
Rule of law – Democracy that implies free and fair elections.
Judicial Review – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under article 32

MINERVA MILLS LTD VS UNION OF INDIA

.Earlier through 39th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1975 the Parliament inserted Nationalization
Act, 1974 into Ninth Schedule which means that any challenge on the said act was outside the
purview of judicial review. Now, the petitioner was not able to challenge this aspect of
39thamendment since this remedy was barred by 42 nd Amendment. The Parliament after suffering
massive defeat in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain in order to make its power and authority
supreme passed 42nd amendment (as discussed earlier in Indira Nehru Gandhi summary) to bar any
challenge on constitutional amendments in courts of law.

pg. 10
 P a g e | 11

MJNERVA MILLS LTD. UNION O INDIA1

In this case Minerva mills the petitioners challenged the validity of section 4 and 55, constitution (4
and amendment) Act, 1976 on the ground of violation of the basic structure of the constitution as laid
down in Kesauananda Bharati. These sections amended respectively Articles 31-C and 368. In
Article 31-C law implementing any directive principle were exempted from challenge on the ground
of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 31, and in Article 368 clauses (4) and (5) validated all invalidated
and existing amendments and removed all limitations on future amendments. While the court
unanimously invalidated the amendment of Article 368, it invalidated the amendment of Article 31-C
by 4: 1. Applying the basic structure doctrine with respect to Article 368, it held: Since the
constitution had conferred a limited amending power on parliament, Parliament cannot under the
exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited
amending power is one of the basic features of our constitution and therefore, the limitations on that
power cannot be destroyed.

 Constitutional Validity of 42 nd
 Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1976

This landmark Judgment came on July 31, 1980. The judgment was divided into 4:1, Y.V.
Chandrachud (then CJI) writing on behalf of himself and (A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.S. Kailsam
JJ.) while Justice P.N. Bhagwati wrote the dissenting opinion. The majority struck down Section 55
& 4 of the 42nd Amendment as it was in violation of basic structure thereby upholding the Basic
Structure doctrine laid down by Kesavananda Bharti.[4] Bhagwati J. wrote the dissenting opinion in
the sense that he agreed with the majority on the point of striking down section 55 however he
dissented with the majority on the point of Section 4 of 42 nd Amendment.

The court held that the newly introduced Clause 4&5 were actually inserted to bar the courts to
entertain any challenge on the question of validity of the constitutional amendments. The court
beautifully described the importance of Judicial Review in the following words…..Our Constitution
is founded on a nice balance of power among the three wings of the state namely the Legislature, the
Executive & the Judiciary. It is the function of the Judges nay their duty to pronounce upon the
validity of laws. The court held Section 55 of the amendment act 1976 void since it firstly made

pg. 11
 P a g e | 12

challenge in court impossible &secondly it removes all the restrictions on the power of Parliament
under Article 368. The court rightly interpreted the true object of these new clauses which was to
throw away the limitations imposed by Kesavananda on Parliament.

The newly added clause 5 has the effect of even repealing the entire constitution and change it into a
totalitarian constitution as per the political exigencies of the ruling political party & still it won’t be a
ground for a challenge in the court because of the combined reading of Clause 4&5 of
42ndAmendment. Depriving the courts their power of judicial review is making Fundamental Rights a
box of rhetoric dreams as they would never be granted and rights without remedies.

The court relying on Kesavananda opined that the power to amend under Art. 368 is not a power to
destroy. In the above said decision the court clearly mentioned the scope of amendment under Article
368. The court answered about the extent of the word “Amendment”. The court found that the word
“amend” in the provision of Article 368 stands for a restrictive connotation and could not ascribe to a
fundamental change. To understand it simply; the parliament in order to pass a constitutionally valid
amendment, the particular amendment is subject to the application of Basic Structure test and has to
pass it.

The court also explained the relationship between the provisions of Part III & Part IV of the
Constitution. The court said that the entire Indian Constitution rests upon the foundation of Part III &
Part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over another will be shaking the foundation of the
Constitution. Striking a harmonious balance between the provisions of Part III & Part IV is where
justice lies and making one part subservient to another would only lead to chaos. The provisions of
Part IV must be achieved but without abrogation of FR’s and anything which shakes this balance
violates the essential balance of the Constitution. Therefore, the court in strict terms laid down that
the balance between DPSP’s & FR’s is Basic Structure of the Constitution.

As regards to Section 4 of the amendment act 1976 which tried to separate Article 14 and 19 from
Article 31 C this was held void as it destroyed the basic feature. The articles mentioned under Article
14 and 19 are essential elementary articles n modern democracies. Most of the recent laws are passed
to satisfy the obligations of DPSP because of which Art. 14 & 19 have stood withdrawn. These rights
are clearly without any doubt universal because of their presence in Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Therefore, restoring the judgment of Kesavananda on the point of Art. 31 C the court struck
down Section 4 of the amendment act 1976.

pg. 12
 P a g e | 13

Bhagwati J. agreed with the majority in striking down Section 55 of the amendment act since it made
judicial review of the amendments impossible. In his view this exclusion of judicial review is
indirectly enlarging the scope of Parliament’s amending capacity. Regarding Cl. 5 he wrote that it
cannot remove any doubt which did not existed. However, the amendment in Article 31 C was held
valid by him because he was of the opinion that the court should not on first hand hold any law made
under it unconstitutional. In his opinion the courts should look into the pith of the law by
followingDoctrine of Pith& Substance. If the law is substantially connected to the provisions
mentioned under DPSP’s then it would be a constitutional law and on the contrary if there is no
nexus between the law and the DPSP’s it would be surely struck down.

Therefore, the court by 4:1 majority held sections 4 & 55 of the 42 nd Constitutional (Amendment)
Act, 1976 unconstitutional.

pg. 13
 P a g e | 14

CONCLUSION
This judgment of the Supreme Court was the first in which the basic doctrine was applied to
save the constitution from malicious attacks. The five judges bench by holding the impugned
39th proved to the parliament that they are just elected to make laws which are beneficial to
the “people of India” & not those laws which are beneficial for them. This judgment was
the triumph of Rule of Law because once again it was the law that proved to be triumphant and
not those who make it. The apex court proved that law is supreme and it cannot be brought to
knees even by the chosen ones. India is the largest democracy in the world. The essence of a
democratic government lies in the conduct of free & fair elections. The parliament tried to
mold this basic essence towards their end so that they could have the prerogative to validate an
invalid election. One could only imagine and fear the imagination that this regressive
amendment would have brought to the Indian Democracy. Besides, what is the meaning of
Democracy i.e. for the people, by the people & of the people if there are no free &
fair elections? The amendment privileged the specific members’ elections being challenged in
the court which is like stripping a person of his legal right to remedy.
It was very brave of the judiciary that along with the Emergency turmoil it came up with such a
brave and important decision where it was proven that Indian Constitution will not bend its
knees against such malicious bunch of politicians. The apex court must be honored for such a
important decision against the mighty Indira Gandhi Government .

pg. 14