CASES IN FAVOUR OF RULE OF LAW

The plan of the Indian Constitution depends on the idea of Rule of law. The Constitution of India
has been made the supreme law of the nation and different laws are required to be in similarity
with it. Any law which is found disregarding any arrangement of the Constitution, especially, the
major rights, is proclaimed void. The Indian Constitution likewise fuses the standard of
correspondence under the steady gaze of law and equivalent security of laws. Thus, the standard
of Rule of Law is imperative to any legitimate and political framework. It assimilates the thoughts
of decency, balance, and non-mediation.
There have been many cases in India’s history that have favored the Rule of Law like –

 Case between Bachan Singh Vs. Union of India.

 Shankari Prasad Vs. Union of India.
 Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan.
 Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab.
 Raman Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India.
But among all these, there are 2 cases which had a very strong Political and historical implication
in India’s context. The cases are –

 Indira Gandhi Vs. Raj Narayan.

 Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala.

1. INDIRA GANDHI VS RAJ NARAIN CASE–

INTRODUCTION
Indira Gandhi versus Raj Narain demonstrated the quality of India's democratic based
organizations, it additionally went about as the impetus for the inconvenience of the Emergency.
It was the first time through in free India's history that a Prime Minister's election was put aside. It
was likewise the first occasion when that an established change was struck down on the essential
structure doctrine that had been propounded several years earlier, in the Kesavananda Bharati case
(1973). It was likewise the first occasion when that election laws had been reflectively changed to
approve the canceled decision of the Prime Minister. The knowledge about the case in the Supreme
Court of India occurred amid the Emergency when major rights had been suspended, squeeze
oversight was authorized and, in this manner, there was no open detailing of the case or its
hearings. It was a 1975 case heard by the Allahabad High Court that found the Prime Minister of
India Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices. Ruling on the case that had been filed by the
defeated opposition candidate, Raj Narain, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha invalidated Gandhi's win and
barred her from holding elected office for six years. The decision caused a political crisis in India
that led to the imposition of a state of emergency by Gandhi's government from 1975 to 1977. The
date of judgement was on 19th December 1975. Judges involved in the case were H.R. Khanna, M.H.
Beg, K.K. Mathew and A. N Ray. Justice H.R. Khanna held, that the democracy is the Basic Structure
of the Constitution and it includes free and fair election which cannot be violated.
CASE FACTS
Raj Narain had contested the Indian general decision, 1971 against Indira Gandhi, who represented
to the body electorate of Rae Bareilly in the Lok Sabha, the lower place of the Indian Parliament.
After the election, Gandhi was re-chosen from Rae Bareilly and Congress won a general triumph in
Parliament. Narain documented a request off to offer the decision, claiming that Indira Gandhi used
bribery, government machinery, and resources to gain an unfair advantage in contesting the
election. Narain particularly charged Gandhi of utilizing government workers as election agents and
of sorting out battle exercises in the body electorate while still on the finance of the administration.
Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha refuted Gandhi's win and banned her from holding chose office for 6
years, which lead to a political crisis in India and Emergency was imposed from 1975 – 1977.
JUDGMENT
Sinha announced the election decision in the Rae Bareilly voting public "invalid and void", and
banned Gandhi from holding chose the office. While Sinha had rejected charges of bribery, he had
discovered Indira liable of abusing government machinery as an administration representative
herself. The court order gave the Congress (R) twenty days to choose to replace Gandhi in her
official posts. This was uncommon. Its effect at long last prompted the fall of Congress at the Center
quickly after the crisis. Raj Narain turned into a national saint for ousting Gandhi's and the Congress'
administration following 30 long stretches of autonomy, at first by trouncing Gandhi in a legal fight
and later in 1977 Lok Sabha election. This satisfied a hidden dream of his companion and guide Ram
Manohar Lohia. Gandhi requested the decision to the Supreme Court of India, which allowed a
restrictive remain of execution on the decision on 24 June 1975. On 7 November 1975, the Supreme
Court of India formally toppled the conviction. According to Article 392A that the election of the
Prime Minster and the Speaker cannot be challenged in any court in the country. It can be rather
challenged before a committee formed by the Parliament itself. But the Supreme Court declared
the 39th Amendment to be unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure of the constitution.
SIGNIFICANCE
The verdict helped galvanize the opposition political parties. Jayaprakash Narayan, the leader of
the Janata Morcha, called for a campaign of civil disobedience to oust Indira's government. On 25
June 1975, a state of emergency was declared by the President of India, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed,
upon the advice of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi arguing that the political disorder was a threat to
national security. Thousands of opposition leaders and activists were arrested. Press censorship
was introduced and elections were postponed. During this period, Indira Gandhi's Congress (R)
used its parliamentary majority to amend the Indian Constitution and overwrite the law that she
had been found guilty of violating. In 1977, the opposition Janata Party alliance defeated Indira
Gandhi's Congress (R) party. Raj Narain defeated Indira Gandhi in the Rae Bareilly constituency by
a huge margin.

2. KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS. STATE OF KERALA

INTRODUCTION
The Kesavananda Bharati case was the culmination of a serious conflict between the judiciary and
the government. It is popularly known as fundamental rights case. Under this case Supreme Court
of India outlined the Basic Structure doctrine of the Constitution and it can be regarded as a second
sitting of 'Constituent Assembly'. The fundamental question dealt in Kesavananda Bharati v State
of Kerala is whether the power to amend the constitution is an unlimited, or there are identifiable
parameters regarding powers to amend the constitution. This is the greatest decision in the history
of Indian constitution which determined the fabric of Indian constitution and also has till date the
highest number of judges on bench. Supreme Court of India outlined the Basic Structure doctrine
of the Constitution.
Judges involved in the case were –
• M. Sikri
• N. Grover
• N. Ray
• G. Palekar
• R. Khanna
• M. Shelat
• K. Mathew
• S. Hegde
• H. Beg
• Jaganmohan Reddy
• N. Dwivedi
• V. Chandrachud
CASE FACTS
In February 1970 Swami HH Sri Kesavananda Bharati, Senior head of “Edneer Mutt” – a Hindu Mutt
situated in Edneer, a village in Kasaragod District of Kerala, challenged the Kerala government’s
attempts, under two state land reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its
property. Although the state invoked its authority under Article 21, an Indian jurist, Nanabhoy
Palkhivala, convinced the Swami into filing his petition under Article 26, concerning the right to
manage religiously owned property without government interference. The big fight was
anticipated. Major amendments to the Constitution (the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th) had been
enacted by Indira Gandhi’s government through Parliament to get over the judgments of the
Supreme Court in R.C. Cooper (1970), Madhavrao Scindia (1970) and Golak Nath. The first had
struck down bank nationalization, the second had annulled the abolition of privy purses of former
rulers and the third had held that the amending power could not touch Fundamental Rights. All
these amendments were under challenge in Kesavananda. Since Golak Nath was decided by eleven
judges, a larger bench was required to test its correctness. And so, 13 judges were to sit on the
Kesavananda bench. Even though the hearings consumed five months, the outcome would
profoundly affect India’s democratic processes.
ISSUES
There were certain important and relevant questions asked like –
• Whether constitutional amendment as per article 368 applicable to fundamental rights also?
• Whether 24th amendment act 1971 is valid?
• Whether section 2(a), 2(b) and 3 of 25th amendment is valid?
• Whether 29th amendment act 1971 is valid?
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, and considered the
validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th amendments. The bench gave eleven separate
judgements, which agreed on some points and differed on others. Nanabhoy Palkhivala, assisted
by Fali Nariman, presented the case against the government in both cases. The Chief Justice
concluded that “as a matter of construction, there is no escape from the conclusion that Article 368
provides for the amendment of the provisions contained in Part III without imposing on Parliament
an obligation to adopt the procedure prescribed by the provision.
SIGNIFICANCE
The most significant contribution by Kesavananda Bharati judgment is the recognition of
supremacy of the Constitution of India and its unalterable features. The Kesavananda judgment
also defined the extent to which Parliament could restrict property rights, in pursuit of land reform
and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that
suggested that the right to property could not be restricted.
CONCLUSION
This case upheld the changes in 24th amendment in Article 368 and Article 13 of Indian Constitution
by overruling Golaknath Judgment. It determined the fabric of Indian constitution which is still
relevant and serving as Fundamental Rights case.