9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Thirty-ninth Amendment. 2. Validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. 3. Whether the Parliament can validate an election retrospectively. 4. Whether judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 5. Whether the principle of separation of powers was violated. 6. Whether the amendments affect the democratic structure of the government. 7. Whether the amendments violate the principle of equality under Article 14. 8. Whether the amendments were validly passed despite the detention of certain members of Parliament. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the Thirty-ninth Amendment: The Thirty-ninth Amendment introduced Article 329A, which provided that the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker cannot be challenged except before a body set up by Parliament. The Court held that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329A were unconstitutional as they violated the basic structure of the Constitution. These clauses deprived the courts of their power to adjudicate election disputes, which is an essential feature of democracy. The amendment was seen as an attempt to place the election of the Prime Minister beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny, thus violating the rule of law and equality before the law. 2. Validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975: The Court held that these Acts were valid. They were within the legislative competence of Parliament and did not violate any provisions of the Constitution. The amendments were intended to clarify the law and remove uncertainties regarding the election expenses and the definition of a candidate. The retrospective operation of these amendments was upheld as it was within the power of Parliament to legislate retrospectively. 3. Whether the Parliament can validate an election retrospectively: The Court acknowledged that retrospective validation of elections is a well-known legislative process. However, it held that the manner in which the Thirty-ninth Amendment sought to validate the Prime Minister's election was unconstitutional. The amendment not only validated the election but also declared the judgment of the Allahabad High Court void, which was seen as an encroachment on judicial power. 4. Whether judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution: The Court held that judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The exclusion of judicial review by clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329A was, therefore, unconstitutional. Judicial review is essential to ensure that the rule of law is maintained and that the actions of the government are subject to scrutiny by the judiciary. 5. Whether the principle of separation of powers was violated: The Court held that the principle of separation of powers was violated by the Thirty-ninth Amendment. By taking over the function of adjudicating election disputes, Parliament encroached upon the judicial domain. The Constitution does not permit the Legislature to exercise judicial powers, and such an encroachment undermines the checks and balances inherent in the constitutional framework. 6. Whether the amendments affect the democratic structure of the government: The Court held that the amendments did not destroy the democratic structure of the government. The rule of the majority and the electoral process were still intact. However, the specific provisions of the Thirty-ninth Amendment that sought to place the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial scrutiny were unconstitutional as they violated the principles of equality and the rule of law. 7. Whether the amendments violate the principle of equality under Article 14: The Court held that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329A violated the principle of equality under Article 14. These provisions created a special class for the Prime Minister and the Speaker, placing their elections beyond the reach of the law. Such a classification was arbitrary and had no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The amendments were, therefore, struck down as they violated the fundamental right to equality. 8. Whether the amendments were validly passed despite the detention of certain members of Parliament: The Court held that the amendments were validly passed despite the detention of certain members of Parliament. The legality of the detention orders could not be challenged collaterally in these appeals. The presence of the detained members would not have made a difference to the passing of the amendment, and therefore, the validity of the amendments was upheld on this ground. Conclusion: The Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975 filed by Smt. Indira Gandhi, setting aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had declared her election void. Civil Appeal No. 909 of 1975 filed by Shri Raj Narain was dismissed. The Court held that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329A were unconstitutional as they violated the basic structure of the Constitution by excluding judicial review and violating the principle of equality. The amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, were upheld as valid.
|
