🏛️ Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): When the Judiciary Challenged the Prime Minister of India

In the annals of Indian constitutional law, Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) stands as a pivotal moment when the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of judicial review—even over the highest elected office in the country. This case was not just a legal battle; it was a historic clash between constitutional principles and political power during a time of unprecedented national upheaval.

⚖️ Background: The 1971 Lok Sabha Elections

In 1971, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi contested and won the Lok Sabha seat from Rae Bareli in Uttar Pradesh. Her political rival, Raj Narain, who had contested and lost the election, filed a case in the Allahabad High Court, alleging corrupt electoral practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Raj Narain accused Indira Gandhi of:

• Misusing government machinery for election campaigning.

• Employing state resources (e.g., officials and helicopters) in her favor.

🧑‍⚖️ Allahabad High Court Verdict (June 12, 1975)

Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha delivered a historic verdict:

• Held Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractice under Sections 123(7) and 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act.

• Declared her election void and barred her from holding elected office for six years.

This ruling directly challenged the validity of her tenure as Prime Minister, sparking a constitutional crisis.

⚠️ The Aftermath: Emergency Declared

Just 13 days after the verdict, on June 25, 1975, Indira Gandhi’s government declared a National Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing internal disturbances.

During this period:

• Civil liberties were curtailed.

• Press censorship was enforced.

• Opposition leaders were arrested.

👩‍⚖️ Supreme Court Appeal

Indira Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court and simultaneously amended the Constitution via the 39th Amendment Act (1975), inserting Article 329A, which:

• Exempted the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny.

• Stated that such disputes would only be decided by a parliamentary body, not courts.

This amendment was widely criticized as an assault on the doctrine of separation of powers.

🧵 Key Legal Issues

1. Can Parliament place the Prime Minister's election beyond judicial review?

2. Does Article 329A violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution?

🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court Verdict (November 7, 1975)

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice A.N. Ray, struck down Clause 4 of Article 329A, declaring it unconstitutional.

🧠 Key Takeaways:

• Judicial review is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution (as laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala).

• Parliament cannot immunize the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny.

• Equality before the law (Article 14) applies to all, including the PM.

📌 Significance

• This case reinforced the independence of the judiciary and its role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

• Marked a strong rebuke to executive overreach.

• Cemented the doctrine that even the highest elected official is not above the law.