Citation- AIR 1975 SC 2299

Bench- A.N Ray (Chief Justice), H.R Khanna, M.H Beg, K.K Mathew


This is the case for the election disputes related to the prime minister and the 39th Amendment to the Constitution.


In the 1971 general election, the appellant was selected candidate for Rae Bareli constituency in Uttar Pradesh. She won the election with 1,11,810 votes from the nearest competitor, Sri Raj Narain. Sri Raj Narain, was the first respondent sponsored by the Samyukt Socialist Party, challenged the successful election of a candidate for an election petition under the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 u/s 80 r/w S.100 in 1951. A learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court supported this challenge for two reasons, but rejected the other. The judge allowed an absolute stay of 20 days. The appellant moved to the Supreme Court and challenged the High Court’s “unseating” ruling.


  1. Is clause 4 of Article 329A of the Indian Constitution, was constitutionally valid?
  2. Are the Representation of the People Act of 1974 (Amendment) and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1974 effective in the Constitution?
  3. Was Indira Gandhi’s election invalid?


The Honourable Supreme Court is Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The court pointed out that section 329-A (4) could be overturned for violating the free and fair election principles that are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The measure revoked the forum without providing another forum for disputes about the validity of the appellant’s election, and stipulated that the dispute would not be governed by election law and that the validity of the election should be absolute. And as a result, they are not attacked and eliminate the right and remedy to challenge the validity of the above elections. According to section 329(b), the election dispute must be submitted to the legislature to provide powers under the law. The nature of disputes raised in election petitions can only be resolved through judicial proceedings. Article 329 Clause 4 shall deprive and abolish these rights.

The court ruled that the constitutional validity of the court law is entirely dependent on the existence of legislative powers, and the legislature has no other prohibitions except for the restrictions set forth in Article 13. It is the power of Parliament to enact election laws in accordance with Article 368.

Parliament has the power to list and define election costs. Congress has the power to limit election costs. Congress has the right to declare whether certain expenses can be included in or out of election costs. Congress has the power to adopt decisive evidence for appointments, resignations or termination of services.

Parliament has the right to declare what can be considered a for-profit office. Parliament has the right to state what constitutes corruption and what does not. Parliament has the power to establish the basis for disqualification. Parliament has the power to define “candidates.” These are all legislative policies that are not part of the basic legislation. Similarly, due to the retrospective effect on legislative amendments, it is considered an effective exercise of legislative powers. The retroactive operation of the law will create difficulties for some or others. This is inevitable, but this is not a reason to deny Parliament authority to enact retroactive laws. When it comes to laws that have a retrospective effect, the theory is that the law has actually been implemented in the past, and that the provisions of this law and its general implementation will not challenge the basis for discrimination or discrimination. The reason for injustice is only the retroactive effect.

She was aided by a government official published in the Official Gazette by the Uttar Pradesh government. These include local chief executives, superintendents, public business executive engineers, and Hydel engineers who were used to organize podiums and build power for speakers. She held a meeting during the campaign. During the campaign, her spending exceeded the prescribed amount. The Supreme Court ruled that the term “candidate” of the People’s Representative Act (Amendment) Act, 1975 in Section 123 (7) was defined as the person who submitted the nomination document. Later, on February 1, 1971, Indira Gandhi was found to have submitted a nomination document, so help received from officials prior to that date could not be considered a corrupt act.

According to Article 83(1)(b) and 123(6) of the People’s Representative Act of 1951, there was no voluntary expenditure of friends, relatives or sympathy and the candidate without the candidate’s request or approval. Expenses incurred are considered the candidate’s own expenses. The court also ruled that in accordance with Article 77 of the People’s Representative Act of 1951, the cost of a particular party to elect a candidate for that party is not part of the candidate’s election costs. Likewise, participating in a political party’s action plan does not count toward the party’s election costs.

Therefore, five Supreme Court judges ordered the above issues based on the reasons mentioned in the application.

  • Ruling the clause “4” and “5” of Section 329 A in violation of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
  • The People’s Representative Act of 1974 (Amendment) and the Election Laws Act of 1975 (Amendment) Act are completely consistent with the Constitution and are considered legal without weakness.
  • Indie Gandhi elections in the Rae Bareli constituency was considered to be valid.

The Supreme Court confirmed the election by withdrawing the ruling of the Allahabad High Court and withdrawing all charges of corruption against Indira Gandhi and proclaiming resignation.


After carefully checking the reasons presented by the judge in this particular case and reviewing the background history of the case, I personally believe that judgment is theoretically correct in theory, but practical and fair. Based on fairness and conscience, this is a failed judgment.

During the campaign, Indira Gandhi was assisted by civil servants, and during the campaign he received service from the military and the air force. The High Court of Allahabad was convicted of corruption as mentioned in Article 123(7) of the People’s Representatives Act of 1951, which would invalidate the election and ban participation in the election for the next six years.

Indira Gandhi received an unconditional suspension order from Judge Jagmohan lal Sinha and appealed to the Supreme Court, and she was very skilful to apply to the country. She was able to pass the 39th Amendment to the Constitution without much effort, and in doing so, many opposition lawmakers were arrested for preventive detention. It also passed the People’s Representative (Amendment) Act of 1974 and the Election Law Act (Amendment) Act of 1975 (now known as the Amendment’s Act of 1974 and 1975).

It seems that these three major amendments have been made to eliminate all grounds of conviction in the High Court of Allahabad. The Supreme Court ruled that the amendments in 1974 and 1975 were legislative rules and were constitutionally valid because Congress had the right to amend them. However, the judge amends this amendment. Suspicions about Indy La Gandhi’s head.

Likewise, when these amendments were passed, most opposition parties were in custody for no reason and were unable to vote and vote on the measure. The Supreme Court ignorantly stated that this is a matter of Congress and that the Supreme Court cannot do anything about it. The duty of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution and are considered guardians and guardians of the Constitution.


Author: Prakalp Shrivastava,
3rd year, School of law, jagran lakecity university, bhopal (M.P)


Leave a Comment