NCLAT: Can Seek Eviction of Tenant from Corporate Debtor's Property under Tenancy Law  ||  NCLAT: For Calculating Limitation Period, Period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 shall stand excluded  ||  NCLAT: Adjudicating Authority Can’t Decide Workers' Claims for Layoff Period Dues under ID Act  ||  NCLAT: While Dismissing Appeal for Non-Prosecu., Adj. Authority Can’t Direct Dismissal on Merits Too  ||  NCLAT: Claims Subsequent to Cut-off Date to be Dealt as Per RP by Adjudicating Authority  ||  NCLAT Upholds Canara Bank’s Claims for Loans Advanced to CD on behalf of Homebuyers  ||  Allahabad HC Stays Criminal Proceedings on Ground of Inordinate Delay Caused by State  ||  Ker. HC Declares Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Rules as Ultra Vires  ||  Del. HC: Support to Terrorist Organisation through Money or Networking is Prohibited under UAPA  ||  HP HC: Mentioning of Wong Provision Not Fatal to Application    

Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain and Anr. - (Supreme Court) (07 Nov 1975)

Saving democracy from itself

MANU/SC/0304/1975

Constitution

This Supreme Court decision, arising out of an Allahabad High Court ruling that likely abetted a declaration of emergency, may have saved the nation’s democracy, and its unity. On trial stood Article 329-A of the Constitution, effected by the thirty-ninth Constitutional Amendment in 1975, purporting to take away challenge against election of the Prime Minister and Speaker of the House, save for by a body elected by Parliament. Essentially, it nullified all effect of the High Court’s decision calling into question Ms. Gandhi electoral tactics and voiding her election. Heavy handed? Definitely. Admirably diabolical? Possibly.

Unsurprisingly, the Court found the thirty-ninth Amendment, 1975 a bit damaging to the basic structure of the Constitution, which probably preferred “free, fair and pure election” over dictatorial rule. Clause (4) of Article 329-A of the Constitution was struck down for abolishing judicial review without providing another forum, extinguishing both the right and remedy to challenge validity of the election. However, the Supreme Court also noted that the High Court had been mistaken in its interpretation that voluntary expenditure by friends and relatives without request was expenditure by the candidate herself. Ultimately, Ms. Gandhi’s election was upheld, ironically, removing the need for all the political and constitutional machinations.

Relevant : His Holiness Kesavanada Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0445/1973 Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amarnath Chawla MANU/SC/0277/1974 Article 329 of the Constitution Act Article 329-A of the Constitution Act

Tags : INDIRA GANDHI   PRIME MINISTER   ELECTION   MALPRACTICE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved