The Allahabad High Court invalidated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election to the Lok Sabha on the ground of corrupt practices as per Section 8A of Representation of People Act, 1951. Such decision was made by the Allahabad High Court on the basis of a case filed by Raj Narain, a contender against Indira Gandhi in the same election from Raibareilly constituency. Raj Narain was an extremely popular leader and was convinced that he was going to win the elections. However, Indira Gandhi won with a way greater number of votes than expected. This is when the theory of conspiracy and misconduct was brought up by Raj narain and an election petition with charges of corrupt practices was filed against Indira Gandhi. He also contended that Indira Gandhi had made unauthorized use of government vehicles for the purposes of her election campaigning, and had given out liquor and blankets to all the voters in order to exercise a control over their votes and with all this, she also seemed to have exceeded the permitted limit of expenditure to be made on election campaigns.

Mrs. Gandhi was also accused of taking the aid of various government servants for her election campaigning and for using a religious symbol (cow and a calf) to represent the party which were strictly prohibited under Section 123(7) and 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 respectively.

With regard to the above facts, the Allahabad High Court had framed the following issues:

1.     Whether Mrs. Gandhi had procured the services of Yashpal Kapoor for the furtherance of the prospects of her election while he was still a gazetted officer?

2.     Whether Yashpal Kapoor had bribed Swami Adwaitanand for the purpose of inducing him to contest as a candidate in the election?

3.     Whether at the instance of Mrs. Gandhi, members of the armed forces had arranged Air Force planes and helicopters for her, flown by members of the armed forces to enable her to address election meetings, and if so, whether it amounted to a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1974?

4.     Whether at the instance of Mrs. Gandhi and Yashpal Kapoor, the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of Rae Bareli had arranged for barricades, rostrums and loudspeakers for Mrs. Gandhi’s election meetings, and if so, whether it amounted to a corrupt practice under section 123 (7) of the Representation of People Act, 1974?

5.     Whether quilts, blankets, dhotis and liquor had been distributed by the agents and workers of Mrs. Gandhi in order to induce voters to vote for her? and

6.     Whether by using the symbols of cow and calf, Mrs. Gandhi had been guilty of making an appeal to religious sentiments and had therefore committed a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act?

The cross-examination of Mrs. Gandhi, which formed an essential chunk of the proceedings, unveiled a number of secrets which exposed her apparently true story as false. The proceedings highlighted the following illegitimate tactics employed by Mrs. Gandhi to win the election:

1.     ‘Using undeclared funds;

2.     Using government machinery;

3.     Seeking the services of government officials;

4.     Making amendments to the election law with retrospective effect to legitimize ill practices during the elections;

5.     Persuading voters by providing them with objects; and

6.     Violating laws and concealing facts.’

The outcome of this case became a moment of history. This became the first case in Indian legal history where a Prime Minister was made to appear in person in a court of law and this has also been the only case where the election of a Prime Minister was declared void on the grounds of corrupt practices. The court also forbade Indira Gandhi from taking even one step further towards becoming the Prime Minister of the nation, in addition to which she was banned from being eligible to contest elections for another six years. As a result of this decision, Mrs. Gandhi was greatly aggrieved and she approached the Supreme Court for an appeal against this decision of Allahabad High court in Supreme Court. However, SC being in vacation at that point of time granted a conditional stay on execution on 24 June 1975.

Before there can be a hearing on the appeal in the Supreme Court, the then President declared a National Emergency and almost all powers of a democracy were curtailed and it led to a major political disturbance in the entire nation. During this period of emergency, Indira Gandhi passed the 39th constitutional amendment, which brought in Article 392A to the Constitution of India which laid down that there can be no questions raised upon the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker in any court of law. Any concern regarding the validity of such an election could be questioned only before a committee constituted by the Parliament itself. In order to validate her election results, the Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi enacted The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Law (Amendment) Act, 1975. These amendments when read along with the amendments made to the Constitution made her disputed election results stand on a fair ground.

This case led to a lot of upheaval in politics in India. This judgment was delivered on 15 March 1972. About a year later came the appointment of Justice A.N. Ray as the Chief Justice of India and the supersession of the three judges—Justices Shelat, Hegde and Grover. It might be of interest to know that in an interview with Kuldip Nayar on the eve of the supersession, Justice Hegde is reported to have said that he was superseded because of this judgment which he had delivered in Mrs Gandhi’s case.

The shocking judgment:

Having high expectations from the judiciary to not get affected by any kind of political pressure, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Counsel for the Respondents, had said,

“Judges were trained to resist pressure, but in these extraordinary conditions it would depend on the kind of pressure that was brought to bear upon them. He said, ‘If I was told that I would be jailed for arguing this case, I could have resisted that pressure. But if I was told that my children would be slaughtered, then, perhaps, the situation would have been otherwise. But, in any case I do not think that the Supreme Court judges will succumb to any pressure.”

However, such expectations were short-lived as the Apex Court had upheld the validity of the election. Mr. Shanti Bhushan was not satisfied with the judgment and he straight away took the decision to file a review application against this judgment. The review was sought on the ground that Justice Beg, by delivering a judgment on the merits of the case without hearing the parties, had given a go-by to the principles of natural justice. The review application came up for hearing before the same five-member Bench. It is sufficient to mention here that the review application was dismissed by the five judges on the ground that one of them was of the opinion that there were no sufficient grounds for a review.

When the Allahabad High Court found that the Prime Minister had taken aide of corrupt practices and disqualified her, to dodge this disqualification, Mrs. Gandhi brought out all types of insensible laws and gave them retrospective effect. This was a pure play of power and corruption which acted as an undue influence over the Supreme Court to eventually rule out the case in her favour. This outside influence upon the judiciary is what needs to be changed in order to protect the independence of judiciary.