What is the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case about?

The case arose from a challenge to Indira Gandhi’s 1971 Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareilly. Raj Narain alleged corrupt practices and misuse of government machinery. The dispute later became a constitutional battle about the 39th Constitutional Amendment, Article 329A and whether Parliament could put the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review.

How is this case related to the basic structure doctrine?

The Supreme Court held that Article 329A(4), inserted by the 39th Amendment to shield the Prime Minister’s election from court scrutiny, violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court said that free and fair elections and judicial review are part of the basic structure and cannot be removed even by a constitutional amendment.

What did the Supreme Court decide about Indira Gandhi’s election?

While striking down Article 329A(4), the Court examined the facts under ordinary election law and ultimately upheld Indira Gandhi’s election. It found that the alleged corrupt practices were not proved in a way that would make her election void under the Representation of the People Act.

Why is the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case important for law students?

The case is important because it links election disputes with the basic structure doctrine. It shows that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited, that free and fair elections are a core feature of democracy, and that courts must retain the power of judicial review over even high offices like the Prime Minister.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) Basic Structure

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Emergency, Election Dispute & Basic Structure Doctrine

A turning point case where an election challenge against the Prime Minister became a constitutional battle over free and fair elections and the limits on Parliament’s amending power.

Supreme Court of India 1975 Constitutional & Election Law 9 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Published: 22 Nov 2025

Quick Summary

CASE_TITLE: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain case summary, basic structure doctrine, Article 329A, 39th Constitutional Amendment, free and fair elections

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: emergency and democracy, judicial review, election law in India, Representation of the People Act, Prime Minister election dispute, Supreme Court of India judgment

After the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi won from Rae Bareilly. Her rival Raj Narain challenged her victory in the Allahabad High Court, alleging misuse of government machinery and corrupt practices. The High Court set aside her election, creating a political and constitutional crisis.

During this period, Emergency was declared and the 39th Constitutional Amendment inserted Article 329A(4), which tried to put the election of the Prime Minister beyond the reach of courts. The case before the Supreme Court was no longer only about one constituency; it became a test of the basic structure doctrine and the role of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court struck down Article 329A(4) as violating the basic structure, reaffirmed that free and fair elections and judicial review are essential features of the Constitution, but on the facts finally upheld Indira Gandhi’s election under ordinary election law.

Issues Before the Court

Whether Article 329A(4), added by the 39th Constitutional Amendment to shield the Prime Minister’s election from judicial review, was valid or unconstitutional.
Whether the amendments made to the Representation of the People Act and related election laws in 1974–75 were within Parliament’s power.
Whether the Allahabad High Court was right in declaring Indira Gandhi’s election void for corrupt practices.
More broadly, whether Parliament can change election rules in a way that favours persons in high office without violating the basic structure of the Constitution.

Rules & Legal Provisions

Article 329A (especially clause 4) – Inserted by the 39th Constitutional Amendment to provide a special mechanism for disputes relating to the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker.
Basic Structure Doctrine – Evolved in Kesavananda Bharati, which held that Parliament cannot damage the basic features of the Constitution even by using its amendment power under Article 368.
Article 14 – Equality before law; no special privileges that disturb the rule of law and equal treatment in election disputes.
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Governs elections and defines corrupt practices, including misuse of government machinery.
Articles 122 and 329 – Deal with bar on certain types of judicial interference in parliamentary proceedings and elections, but subject to the basic structure and the general concept of judicial review.

Facts – Timeline Style

Political Timeline

Timeline of key events in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain basic structure case

1971 – Lok Sabha Election

In the 1971 general elections, Indira Gandhi contested from Rae Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh. Her main opponent was Raj Narain, a socialist leader. Indira Gandhi and the Congress won by a huge margin, and she continued as Prime Minister.
Election Petition in Allahabad High Court

Raj Narain filed an election petition before the Allahabad High Court. He alleged that Indira Gandhi had taken unfair advantage of her office, used government officials and resources in her campaign and committed corrupt practices under the election law.
High Court Judgment – Election Set Aside

The High Court held that Indira Gandhi was guilty of certain corrupt practices under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act and declared her election void. It also disqualified her from contesting elections for a period, creating a huge political shock.
Appeal to the Supreme Court & Interim Order

Indira Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court. Justice Krishna Iyer, sitting in vacation, passed an interim order allowing her to continue as Prime Minister and attend Parliament, but with some restrictions such as no voting.
Emergency & 39th Constitutional Amendment

In June 1975, Emergency was proclaimed on the ground of “internal disturbance”. During Emergency, Parliament passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment and introduced Article 329A, which tried to remove the Prime Minister’s election from the scope of ordinary court review.
Supreme Court Hears the Case

The Supreme Court now had to decide not just on the factual dispute about the election, but also on the validity of Article 329A(4) and whether the amendment respected or violated the basic structure.

Arguments – Raj Narain vs. Indira Gandhi

Petitioner – Raj Narain

The 39th Constitutional Amendment and Article 329A(4) were an attempt to remove the Prime Minister’s election from the control of courts.
This violated the basic structure doctrine because judicial review and free and fair elections are essential features of the Constitution.
Giving special protection to one office (Prime Minister) breaks Article 14 and the rule of law, because all candidates should be equal before election law.
Parliament can make election laws, but it cannot decide the validity of its own laws or elections; that is the job of independent courts.

Respondent – Indira Gandhi

Parliament has wide power to regulate elections and to decide the forum and manner in which election disputes will be settled.
The special treatment of the Prime Minister’s election was said to be based on policy and practical reasons, not on discrimination.
It was argued that the amendment did not destroy the basic structure but only changed the procedure by which certain election disputes are handled.
On facts, it was argued that there was no real corrupt practice, because key persons had resigned from government posts in time and election expenses were within limits.

Supreme Court Judgment & Directions

Landmark Decision

Illustration of Supreme Court judgment in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case

The Supreme Court delivered a detailed and balanced judgment. It had to protect the Constitution’s basic structure while also giving a fair decision on the individual election dispute.

Main Findings of the Court

Article 329A(4) struck down: The Court held that this clause, which tried to put the Prime Minister’s election beyond court review, was unconstitutional. It violated the basic structure because it attacked free and fair elections and judicial review.
Amendments to election laws mostly upheld: Amendments to the Representation of the People Act and related laws, which clarified some rules and definitions, were broadly held to be within Parliament’s power, as long as they did not destroy the basic structure.
Indira Gandhi’s election upheld: On examining the evidence, the Court did not find sufficient material to hold that her election was void. Allegations of corrupt practice were not proved in the strict sense required by election law.
Reversal of Allahabad High Court: As a result, the decision of the Allahabad High Court setting aside the election was reversed, and Indira Gandhi could continue as a validly elected Member of Parliament and Prime Minister.

Ratio Decidendi

Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure: Democracy is meaningless without genuine elections. Any attempt to place certain elections beyond court scrutiny violates the basic structure.
Judicial review cannot be removed for high offices: The Constitution’s scheme requires that even the election of the Prime Minister should remain subject to independent judicial review.
Parliament’s amendment power is limited: Though wide, the power under Article 368 does not allow Parliament to create special election rules that break equality and rule of law.
Election law amendments are valid if they respect basic structure: Parliament can change details of election law, but not in a way that gives unfair immunity to those in power or destroys core constitutional values.

Why This Case Matters

It confirms that basic structure doctrine is not only theory; it can be used to strike down even constitutional amendments passed during Emergency.
It shows that no office, not even the Prime Minister, is above the Constitution and judicial review.
It connects election law with democracy as a basic feature, making this a favourite case for questions on free and fair elections.
It helps you write strong exam answers on judicial review, rule of law, emergency and constitutional amendments.
It is a key example of how the Supreme Court can act as a constitutional guardian even in politically tense times.

Key Takeaways for Exams

Use this case whenever you write about basic structure, judicial review and the limits on Parliament’s amendment power.
Always mention Article 329A(4) and the 39th Amendment as the part that was struck down for violating basic structure.
Highlight that free and fair elections and equality in election law are treated as basic features of the Constitution.
Remember that the Court protected the Constitution but still upheld Indira Gandhi’s election on the facts of the case.
Link this case with Kesavananda Bharati to show the evolution of the basic structure doctrine in India.

Mnemonic & 3-Step Memory Hook

Mnemonic: “PM SAFE”

P – Prime Minister’s election at the centre of the dispute.
M – Misuse of machinery alleged in the High Court.
S – Struck down Article 329A(4).
A – Amendment power limited by basic structure.
F – Free and fair elections declared a basic feature.
E – Election upheld on facts by the Supreme Court.

3-Step Hook to Recall the Story

Picture a ballot box in Rae Bareilly with Indira Gandhi and Raj Narain on opposite sides.
Imagine a big lock placed on the Supreme Court building labelled “Article 329A(4)”, trying to stop judges from hearing the case.
Now imagine the Court breaking the lock with a gavel, writing “Basic Structure” above, and at the same time putting a tick mark on Indira Gandhi’s election result.

IRAC Outline – Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain

I – Issue

Whether Article 329A(4) and related changes to election law, which placed the Prime Minister’s election beyond normal court review, were valid constitutional amendments, and whether Indira Gandhi’s 1971 election from Rae Bareilly was void due to corrupt practices.

R – Rule

Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368 but cannot damage the basic structure. Free and fair elections, equality before law and judicial review are treated as core features. Election disputes are governed by the Representation of the People Act.

A – Application

The Court examined Article 329A(4) and found that it gave special protection to one person’s election, removed the ordinary judicial process and undermined the idea of elections under the rule of law. This clashed with basic structure. At the same time, the Court analysed the factual allegations of misuse of government machinery and held that the strict standards for corrupt practice were not met.

C – Conclusion

Article 329A(4) was struck down as unconstitutional because it violated the basic structure, particularly free and fair elections and judicial review. However, the Court upheld the validity of most election law amendments and concluded that Indira Gandhi’s election was valid on the facts, thereby reversing the Allahabad High Court judgment.

Glossary – Important Terms

Basic Structure Doctrine: A judge-made principle that certain core features of the Constitution, like democracy, rule of law and judicial review, cannot be destroyed even by a constitutional amendment.
Judicial Review: The power of courts to examine the validity of laws, amendments and government actions, and to strike them down if they violate the Constitution.
Corrupt Practice: Unfair or illegal behaviour during elections, such as misuse of government machinery, bribery, undue influence or false statements, as defined in the Representation of the People Act.
Emergency: A special situation when the President, on government advice, can declare that the security of India is under threat, leading to temporary expansion of executive power and restrictions on some rights.
Article 329A: A now-removed constitutional provision added by the 39th Amendment, which attempted to create a special scheme for disputes regarding the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker, and to limit the role of ordinary courts.

FAQs – Student Doubts Answered

The case reached the Supreme Court because the Allahabad High Court set aside Indira Gandhi’s election for alleged corrupt practices. She appealed to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the government had passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which raised serious constitutional questions about judicial review of the Prime Minister’s election.

The Supreme Court struck down Article 329A(4), which attempted to remove the Prime Minister’s election from the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. The Court said this violated the basic structure because it undermined free and fair elections and judicial review.

No. After reviewing the evidence under the normal election law, the Supreme Court did not find sufficient proof to treat her conduct as corrupt practice in the strict legal sense. Therefore, it upheld her election while still striking down Article 329A(4).

Use this case in answers on basic structure doctrine, judicial review, free and fair elections, emergency and limits on Parliament’s power. Always mention that the Court struck down Article 329A(4) but still upheld Indira Gandhi’s election, showing a careful balance between politics and principle.