words per minute
34
meghasoni
00:00
Speed
JUDGMENT 1975 AIR 2299 = 1976 (2) SCR 347 = 1975 Suppl. SCC 1 Civil Appeals Nos. 887 and
909 of 1975 The Judgment was delivered by RAY, C.J. :
RAY, C.J. for the In Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975 the appellant is Indira Nehru Gandhi and the
respondent is Raj Narain. Civil Appeal No. 909 of 1975 is the cross objection of the respondent. On
July 14, 1975 it was directed that both the appeals would be heard together. The appeals arise out of
the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated June 12, 1975. The High Court held that the
appellant held that the appellant held herself out as a candidate from December 29, 1970 and was
guilty of having committed corrupt practice by having obtained the assistance of gazetted officers in
furtherance of her election prospects. The High Court further found the appellant guilty of corrupt
practice committed under section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter
referred to as the 1951 Act by having obtained the assistance of Yashpal Kapur a gazetted officer for
the furtherance of her election prospects. The High Court held the appellant to be disqualified for a
period of six years from the date of
2. It should be stated here that this judgment disposes of both the appeals. Under directions of this
Court the original record of the High Court was called for. The appeal filed by the respondent with
regard to issues Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9 formed the subject-matter of cross objections in Civil Appeal
No. 909 of 1975. The cross objections are the same which form grounds of appeal filed by the
respondent in the High Court at Allahabad against an order of dismissal of Civil Misc. Writ. No.
3761 of 1975 filed in the High Court at Allahabad.
3. The Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 contains three principal features. First,
Article 71 has been substituted by a new Article
71. The new Article 71 states that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Parliament may by
law regulate any matter relating to or connected with the election of a President or Vice-President
including the grounds on which such election may be questioned.
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr on 7 November, 1975
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/936707/ 1
4. The second feature is insertion of Article 329A in the Constitution. Clause 4 of Article 329A is
challenged in the present appeals. There are six clauses in Article 329A.
5. The first clause states that subject to the provisions of Chapter II of Part V [except sub-clause (e)
of clause (1) of Article 102] no election to either House of Parliament of a person who holds the
office of Prime Minister at the time of such election or is appointed as Prime Minister after such
election; and to the House of the People of a person who holds the office of Speaker of that House at
the time of such election or who is chosen as the Speaker for that House after such election; shall be
called in question, except before such authority [not being any such authority as is referred to in
clause (b) of Article 329] or body and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law
made by Parliament and any such law may provide for all other matter relating to doubts and
disputes in relation to such election including the grounds on which such election may be
questioned.
6. Under the second clause the validity of any such law as is referred to in clause (1) and the decision
of any authority or body under such law shall not be called in question in any court.
7. The third clause states that where any person is appointed as Prime Minister or, as the case may
be, chosen to the office of the Speaker of the House of the People, while an election petition referred
to in Article 329
(b) in respect of his election to either House of Parliament or, as the case may be, to the House of the
People is pending, such election petition shall abate upon such person being appointed as Prime
Minister or, as the case may be, being chosen to the office of the Speaker of the House of the People,
but such election may be called in question under any such law as is referred to in clause (1).