INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI (SMT.) versus RAJ NARAIN & ANR.

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 24-06-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... ., 
JNDIRA NEHRU GANDHI (SMT.) 
v. 
RAJ NARAIN & ANR. 
June 24, 1975 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER, VACATION )UDGE] 
Representation of the Peuple Act, 1951, S.116B(2)-Stay of t'lectio1l Judg-
ment and order-Judge-Power-Din1ensions of Judge power to stay-Differ-
£·nce between ext:cutive discrerion and judlcial disc.:rt'tion, 
explained-·Cogni~a­
bility of non-legal arguments in such cases-Equity and ground of "unclean 
luuul~"--Cuurts cannot go into the nierit,s· of the case at the stage of 1.tranti11g 
stay-Balance of convenience, public justice etc. are relevant con:,iderations-
Precedents of pre-1966 Election law ure of no value to post-1966 cases of condi-
tional !.tay--/llature of "type design" stay orders and their value-Legal effect 
of a stay order in general and in particular, in the instant case, as a Minister or 
Pri111e Minister-Power to ask for a review of provisional orders. 
In the General Parliamentary Elections of 1971, the appe1lant was declared 
as a successful candidate from the Rae Bareli Constituency in LTttar Pradesh. 
She won the election by a margin of 1,11,810 votes over her nearest rival Sri 
A 
B 
c 
Raj Narain. 
Sri Raj Narain, respondent No. I, who was sponsored by the 
Samyukta Socialist Party filed an election petition u/s 80 r/w S.100 of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 to challenge the election of the success-
D' 
ful candidate. A learned single judge of the Al1ahabad High Court upheld the 
challenge on two grounds rejecting the other grounds of challenge. The learned 
judge also granted an absolute 20 days' stay. The appellant moved this Court, 
challenging the 'unseating' verdict against her by the High Court. The appel-
lant <l'!so sought "absolute stay" of 
the judgment and 
order 
under appeal. 
Respondent No. I filed cross-appeals against the said judgment rejecting the 
grounds of challenge, except n.vo. 
Allowing the petition and granting the stay in terms, the Court 
E 
HELD : l. Whi1e the right to appeal is statutory, the power to stay is dis-
cretionary. 
But judicial discretion-indeed, even executive discretion-cannot 
run riot. 
The former though plenary, is governed in its 
e~ercise by sound 
guidelines and courts look for light, inter alia, from practice and precedent 
without however being hide-bound mechanically. Judicial power is dynamic, 
forward looking and socially luscent and aware. 
(407 H, 408 A] 
2. The court decides forensic questions \Vithout getting embroiled in non-
F 
legal disputes working as it does in a sound-proof system of sorts. The Court 
is the quiet of the storm centre and views with an equal eye, the claims on 
each side, taking judicial note of the high issues and balance of convenience in 
the wider context. The judicial approach is to stay away from political thickets 
and new problems with institutionalised blinkers on, so long as the court 
methodology remains the same. Arguments about political sentiment, political 
propriety and moral compulsion though relevant at other levels, fall beyond 
the conventional judicial orbit and the courts have to discrirninately 5hift them 
while deciding on the grant of stay pending an appeal. If national crises and 
G 
democratic considerations, and not mere balance of convenience and interests 
of justice, were to be major inputs in the Judge's exercise of discretion, systematic 
changes and shifts in judicial attitude may perhaps be needed. 
But sitting in 
time-honoured forensic surroundings the Supreme Court is constrained to judge 
the issues before it by canons sanctified by the usage of this Court. 
[408 C-fi] 
3. The preliminary objection of "unclean hands" not entitling the petitioner/ 
appel1ant to seek the equitable relief of stay is not founded on facts. 
The stay 
order does not state that it was to enable the election of a different leader that 
H 
time was granted. The petitioner could not be faulted as having played false 
to the Court since the Congress Parliamentary Party convoked subsequent to 
the judgment has full-bloodedly plumped in favour of her remaining in office 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[!978] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
as Prime Minister and guiding the Party as its one and only leader. 
In such 
matters one has go by prima facie materials and probabilities. [408 H, 409 A-El 
B 
c 
D 
E 
4. At the stage when the Court is considering whether a stay should 
be 
granted or not, it is premature and perhaps unwise to pronounce on the merits 
of the appeal itself except where the judgment

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.