Constitutional Morality and Political Power: Rajnarayan’s legal struggle against the Prime Minister

Rajnarayan fought against Mrs. Indira Gandhi in people’s court , in parliament and in the court  of law where he won again and again. His fight was tough and against the mightiest of the rulers.  1971 , general parliamentary elections were held for the Lok Sabha across the country. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Rajnarayan were the main candidates from Rae Bareilly Parliamentary Constituency. Apart from them, Shri Swami Advaitanand and Shri Rameshwar Dutt were also candidates. In this election Mrs. Indira Nehru Gandhi got 1,83,109 votes , Rajnarayan got 71,499, Mr. Rameshwar Dutt got 4839 and Mr. Swami Advaitanand got 16627 votes . Mrs. Gandhi won. There was a struggle between  two views in this election- Constitutional-Unconstitutional. Mrs. Gandhi’s side went to any extent to win the election. But Indira’s side, in power dilerium, did not try to see that anyone is watching their actions. Rajnarayan was eyeing closely and  kept counting each and every corrupt deeds of Indira Gandhi. As soon as the elections were over, Rajnarayan approached the court. The legal battle was an important constitutional tool to fight against undemocratic practices in democratic India, so Rajnarayan challenged Mrs. Gandhi’s election in the Allahabad High Court.

Rajnarain was the nearest rival and he successfully challenged the election in the High Court of Allahabad which gave its verdict on 12 June 1975. He raised seven grounds on which the election was challenged . These were:-

1. The predeceasing Lok Sabha was dissolved on 27 November 1970 thereby Mrs. Gandhi became a candidate for the Lok Sabha from that very day itself. Mrs. Indira Gandhi took the help of Mr. Yashpal Kapoor, a gazetted government officer, for her election success. This act of Smt. Indira Gandhi is a corrupt practice as per section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 .
2. Mrs. Gandhi and her election agent took the help of the army of the Central Government using Air Force planes and helicopters, to make the election prospects a success. This was the second corrupt practice by Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
3. Mrs. Gandhi and her election agent took the services of Gazetted Officer , Rae Bareilly District Magistrate , S.P. and U.P. Home Secretary engaged in the service of Uttar Pradesh Government.
4. Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s election agent Yashpal Kapoor and her other agents allured the voters by distributing blankets, quilts , dhoti and liquor to voters which was corrupt practice.
5. Mrs. Indira Gandhi and her election agent used the religious symbol cow and calf for election appeal to the voters which was also corrupt practice.
6. Mr. Yashpal Kapoor, with the consent of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, used many vehicles to bring voters to the polling station which was also a corrupt practice.
7. Mrs. Indira Gandhi and her election agent Mr. Yashpal Kapoor had incurred or authorized expenditure in excess of the prescribed amount. Estimatedly this amount was 9,27,030 . While the legal limit was Rs 35,000 .

The trial judge upheld the challenge only on two grounds. The High Court held Smt Indira Gandhi, who was successful candidate , guilty of two corrupt practices: firstly, she obtained the assistance of the gazetted officers of the government of Uttar Pradesh for furthering her election prospects and secondly she obtained the assistance Yashpal Kapoor , a gazetted officer in the Government of India  holding the post of officer on special duty in the prime minister secretariat for furthering the same purpose.

The  learned justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha declared Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt practices  as per section  123(7) of the Representation of the People Act  and therefore , disqualified from contesting election as per sub-section 8A of the Representation of the People Act for a period of 6 years from the date of this order June 12, 1975.  and her election to the Lok Sabha was declared invalid.

Historical Verdict By Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha given on 12/06/1975

The decision of the Allahabad High Court came just opposite to the expectations of Indira Gandhi. Terrible lightning struck. He acted wisely. The application for stay was placed  before the judge Mr. Jagmohan Lal Sinha. The argument in this application was that Smt. Indira is the Prime Minister of the country. This is an important post. Election to this post will take time. That’s why the decision of the Allahabad court should be postponed till the election of the Prime Minister. Justice Sinha agreed to the adjournment. Got a stay order of 20 days. Justice Sinha said ,  “After hearing the learned counsel for Smt. Indira Gandhi, I am satisfied that there is cogent reason for adjournment of the judgment of the Court. Therefore, stay of 20 days is ordered. This stay order will be deemed to have ended on appeal in the Supreme Court or on completion of 20 days, whichever is earlier.” This order was given by Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha shortly after his judgment on 12 June 1975 .  The path of justice is full of quirks. Otherwise, it is unusual to stop the implementation of the decision as soon as it comes.

The appeal and cross appeal arose out of the dispute as to the validity of the election of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi from the Raebareiily constituency in general parliamentary election of 1971.  The cross appeal went to the Supreme Court of India on the remaining five grounds which were turned down due to lack of proof of the evidences on record.

The total issues before the court were-

1. Did Mrs. Indira Gandhi take the help of Gazetted Officer Mr. Yashpal Kapoor to increase her election chances while she was in the service of Government of India ? If yes then from which capacity ?
2. Did Mrs. Indira Gandhi take the help of military vehicles and helicopters for her speech in her election meetings on 1-2-1971 and 25-2-1971 ? If so , whether it amounts to corrupt practice as per sub-section 120(7) of the Representation of the People Act ?
3. Whether Smt. Indira Gandhi and her election agent Mr. Yash Pal Kapoor , District Magistrate, S.P., Rae Bareilly and Home Secretary , Uttar Pradesh , set up loudspeakers and gheraoed the stage and police during the election visits on 1-2-1971 and 25-2-1971 arranged ? If so, is it clear conduct?
4. Whether Smt. Indira Gandhi and her election agent distributed blankets, quilts , dhotis and liquor to voters through their agents and workers.
5. Whether the items given in the application under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People and the allegation of bribery based on them are general and vague ?
6. The election symbol of cow and calf has been given to the party by the Election Commission. Will the act done for voting on the basis of this election symbol be considered as corrupt practice ?
7. Were the voters brought to the polling station free of cost on the day of election by Yashpal Kapoor, election agent of Smt. Indira Gandhi or by vehicles hired by others with her consent ?
8. Are the things given in paragraph 12 of the application and Schedule V0 vague and general with the evil of corrupt practice ?
9. Did Mrs. Indira Gandhi and her election agent Mr. Yashpal Kapoor spend more than the law ?
10. Has the applicant deposited the security deposit as per the court rules?
11. What relief can be given to the applicant?

Subsidiary issues

(1) Whether Mrs. Gandhi had taken the help of Mr. Yashpal Kapoor to enhance her chances of election when Mr. Kapoor was a Gazetted Officer of the Government of India ? , If yes, from what date ?

(2) Whether Mrs. Indira Gandhi declared herself as a candidate on any date prior to 1-2-1971 . So from which date ?

(3) Whether Shri Yashpal Kapoor continued in the service of the Government of India from and after 4-1-1971 or up to which date ?

Appeal to Supreme Court and betrayal of justice

After the decision of the Allahabad High Court, this demand was made very widely that Mrs. Indira Gandhi should resign immediately. Soon an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against the decision of Justice Mr. Jagmohan Lal Sinha on behalf of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and prayed for a complete stay order. At that time it was the time of summer vacation, during the summer vacation, only one judge is available for the necessary court work in the Supreme Court. At that time , Justice Shri V.R. Krishna Iyer used to sit for the summer vacation of the Supreme Court . Mr. Nani Palkiwala appeared on behalf of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Mr. Shanti Bhushan argued on behalf of Mr. Rajnarayan. Mr. Palkiwala, on behalf of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, said that she should be granted a full stay in this matter. He said that the judgment given against Mrs. Indira Gandhi is baseless and there is a good chance of Mrs. Indira Gandhi winning the appeal. Mr. Palkiwala submitted that Mrs. Indira Gandhi has been found guilty of corrupt conduct only on a subtle and technical basis and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court is very weak and baseless. He said that the appellant Smt. Indira Gandhi will suffer irreparable damage due to not getting the order of stay and therefore it would be appropriate to order stay on her from the point of view of balance of convenience as well. Mr. Shanti Bhushan said in his reply that a stay order was taken on behalf of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in the Allahabad High Court by saying that 20 days time is necessary for the election of the new Prime Minister and now Mrs. Indira Gandhi is the new Prime Minister. Justice Shri Krishna Iyer accepted the argument that she is seeking a stay order to remain the Prime Minister herself instead of conducting the election. Justice Shri Krishna Iyer in his lengthy judgment ordered a stay, directing that Smt. Indira Gandhi would continue to be a member of the Lok Sabha and would be entitled to sign the register of the Lok Sabha, but would not participate in the session of the Lok Sabha as a member of the Lok Sabha . She will not be able to take remuneration as a member of the Lok Sabha. Clarifying this perplexing order, the Hon’ble Justice reiterated that Mrs. Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister or Minister would have every right to participate in both the Houses or joint sittings of the Parliament without voting and to act in her capacity as Prime Minister. There will also be full right to take salary , in this interim order, Justice Shri Krishna Iyer also said that the meaning of the order would be that in addition to the restrictions specified in it, the decision of the Allahabad High Court may not have happened . There is also the same provision in Allahabad High Court that on the order of stay, it is to be treated as if the decision against which the appeal is appealed had not taken place. This type of provision is also found in the common law. Therefore, on 24 June 1975 , when the Supreme Court ordered an interim stay, Mrs. Indira Gandhi had the legal right to continue as Prime Minister and there was no question of immorality in this right. In fact, keeping in view the seriousness of the problem, Justice Shri Krishna Iyer had also ordered that all the appeal cases should be presented before the Supreme Court on a regular basis as soon as the vacation is over.

The importance of the governance and the intention of complete justice must have been behind this order , but Mrs. Indira Gandhi misused the stay. A stay was taken for the election of a new Prime Minister , but she herself remained the Prime Minister. Not only that she continued to be the Prime Minister, but by misusing that position, she kept agitating against the court. In the end, the decision of the court was thrown in the wastebasket. The 20-day conditional stay acted as a trigger for the imposition of Emergency on 25 June 1975. Though it was a judicial act of balance, it had massive political repercussions, leading to one of the darkest periods in Indian democracy. The decision of the court was strangled with the weapon of the court itself. Emergency was imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi; All  civil rights were terminated. Emergency was not only for politicians and political workers , but for all citizens. The whole country was under her influence. Mrs. Indira Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court and demanded a complete adjournment.

Even after the stay order of Honorable Justice , Mr. Krishna Iyer, there was a demand that Mrs. Indira Gandhi should immediately resign from the post of Prime Minister. Although Mrs. Indira Gandhi could have remained the Prime Minister legally and constitutionally at that time , but due to very personal and political apprehensions at that time she declared emergency without consulting the council. It is clear that the demand for his resignation or the speech given while making that demand made it necessary to declare this type of emergency. It also does not appear that the situation had become so grave or threatening that there was no time to take the opinion of the Council of Ministers. The basic reason for declaring emergency was probably that Mrs. Indira Gandhi was facing threat from strong public opinion on the one hand and on the other hand there were apprehensions from the members of her own party. The history of constitution and politics will probably remain that the day of indiscretion not only proved to be a curse for the country for 20 months but also sowed the seeds of destruction and disunity for the National Congress. The judiciary failed to act decisively in a moment of constitutional crisis. Justice Krishna Iyer  went too lenient or politically cautious under pressure.

Height of arbitrariness of governance

During the pendency of the case, state emergency was issued and 39th Constitutional Amendment introduced under Article 329A of the constitution of India, which stated that the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker could not be legally challenged in any Indian court. 

Supremacy of parliament over supremacy of constitution. : Constitutional amendment amendment was done to curtail powers of court by restricting judicial review in matter of places election of PM, President, and Speaker and this nullified the impact of the High Court verdict.

The Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain case had a lasting impact on Indian constitutional law.
It reasserted judicial independence, limited parliamentary power, and strengthened the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that democracy, rule of law, and judicial review remain inviolable in India.

Why only Rajnarayan was chosen to fight against Indira Gandhi?

Rajnarayan was the product of socialist theory from his inception in politics. Brought up as a disciple of  Acharya Narendra Deva and Rammanohar Lohia,  he was elected to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1952 and was Leader of Opposition in the Assembly until 1962.

 It was at this time that Rajnarayan  began to develop his own political views. He critically examined the opinions of the Congress leadership, which was greatly influenced by Lohia. He was influenced by saptkranti principles ,of Lohia,  like national freedom or ending of foreign influence (explicit adversary of English language) and  economic equality through increase in production  . He did not came from split factions of congress as did Morarji left Congress upset with Indira Gandhi being made the prime ministerial candidate after death of Shastriji.  While he was in Hissar jail during emergency,  he proposed two names to fight against Indira Gandhi in 1977 general elections as Indira Gandhi has announced general elections; first one was Chandrashekhar and other one was Atal Bihari Bajpayee as he himself was not sure whether he will be released from jail post upliftment of emergency. At that time everyone was seeking safe place to win parliamentary seats for themselves. Fatefully, when he was released from jail, he took the chance perceiving everyone was reluctant to fight against her leading to change the face value  and phase value of Indian democracy. It is unbelievable to believe for this generation that Rajnarayan gave two PM to India with his sheer grit without any self obsession or self pride. Rajnarayan had no desire for position or neither was he attracted to power. Filing and pursuing a legal case against a sitting Prime Minister in India like Indira Gandhi may be both constitutionally permissible and democratically essential. Yet, the journey from evidence collection to final judgment is fraught with legal hurdles, political interference, and personal risk. Rajnarayan stood tall and firm all through this legal battle. It was the tests of strength of India’s democratic institutions, the independence of its judiciary, and the courage of its civil society.

Implication of fighting a legal battle with standing PM

Swami Adwaitanand, dummy candidate erected by Congress in general elections of 1971, was ready to testify against Gandhi who later deferred. What must have been the feeling of making the standing PM appear in the court on March 18, 1975 that too in a same courtroom where her father Jawaharlal Nehru and grandfather Motilal Nehru practiced. Allurement of creating a new post of additional solicitor general was given to advocate Shanti Bhushan at the cost of retreating from this legal battle. Fighting a legal battle against a sitting Prime Minister is a high-stakes and politically sensitive undertaking with wide-ranging legal, political, and social implications. It not only requires an access to evidence like key government documents, phone records, and surveillance data may be protected under national security or executive privilege. Government agencies (police, CBI, LIU , etc.) hesitated to cooperate due to political pressure or conflict of interest. Even the Law enforcement bodies and judiciary faced pressure to delay or dilute the investigation. One cannot imagine the what sort of mental stress the Rajnarayan have faced during the trials with  media smear campaigns to discredit the petitioners, lawyers, or judges involved.