FACTS OF THE CASE –
• In this case, an appeal was filed by the appellant against the decision of the Allahabad High Court invalidating Smt. Indira Gandhi’s election on the ground of corrupt practices. In the meantime, the Parliament passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which introduced and added a new Article 392A to the Constitution of India. • It was stated by this 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. • Although the Supreme Court validated the election of Indira Gandhi but declared the 39th Amendment to be unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure of the constitution. • The 39th Amendment was made to validate with retrospective effect the election of the then Prime Minister which was set aside by the Allahabad High Court.
• The clause of struck down by the Court on the ground that it violated free and fair elections which was an essential feature that formed the Basic Stuctute of teh Indian Constitution. The exclusion of judicial review in election disputes in this manner resulted in damaging the Basic Structure.
• The Supreme Court held clause (4) of the Constitution 39th Amendment Act, 1975 as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it was outright denial of the Right to Equality enshrined in Article 14, It was held by the Court that these provision were arbitrary and were calculated to damaged and destroy the Rule of Law