Introduction 

• Rule of law and judicial review are the fundamentals of democracy, and parliament cannot override such fundamentals by amending laws. 

Facts 

• The case started with the filing of a complaint against the petitioner, Indira Nehru Gandhi, who was Prime Minister at that time for involvement in unfair practices in the electoral process. 
• During the election, the petitioner represented Congress Party, and the respondent represented the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the petitioner won the election and re-appointed as the Prime Minister of India. 
• The respondent challenged the election by filing a petition before the Allahabad High Court. 
  • The respondent contented that the petitioner has used the government resources in an unfair manner and violated election rules given in the Representation of People’s Act, 1951(RPA). 
• The Allahabad High Court found the petitioner guilty under Section 123(7) of the RPA and declared her election void.   
• The High Court also removed the petitioner from the post of Prime Minister and barred her from standing in elections for the next 6 years. 
• Aggrieved by the decision the petitioner appealed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme court issued stay orders temporarily allowing the petitioner to attend the parliamentary proceedings, but she did not have any voting rights. 
• 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. 
• This amendment barred the Supreme Court from having jurisdiction under ongoing case. 
• The validity of the amendment was later challenged. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether Article 329A clause (4) of the Constitution of India is valid? 
• Whether the Prime Minister’s election is valid or void? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court in this case observed that right to free and fair election is an integral part of the basic structure of the constitution. 
  • The Supreme Court relied on the ruling of the Keshvanad Bharti v. State of Kerela (1973) where A329A (4) of the COI held unconstitutional, and it was clearly held that parliament does has an unlimited power to make amendments which alters the basic structure of the constitution. 
  • It was also noted that rule of law and judicial review are the fundamentals of democracy, and parliament cannot override such fundamentals by amending laws.  
• The Supreme Court further in degerming the validity of election of the petitioner held that there is no substantial evidence found against the petitioner for misusing the resources and the laws. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court and held the election valid.