▲Proof needed — office not yet sourced for Indian National Congress
Affiliation
▲Proof needed — affiliation not yet sourced for Indian National Congress
An office or a party is a dated factual claim in its own right, so neither is printed here without a citation. Where one is missing above it reads as unsourced — it is never guessed at, and never quietly left out.
Verification outcomes
Each number below counts individual statements that this pipeline retrieved and rated. It is a tally of checks on claims, not a score for a person, and it cannot be compared between entities — a larger number means more of that entity’s speech happened to be picked up by a feed.
18
claims retrieved and put through the check.
False
2
No proof
10
Misleading
3
Missing context
3
The record
What governments did, and what it cost the country
Year by year from 1947. Each entry tells you in plain words what happened, who did it, what the evidence is, and where the matter stands today. Every line links to a document: a court judgment, a law, an audit report or a charge sheet. The label on each entry is its position today. An accusation is not a conviction, and a person cleared by a court is shown as cleared.
1946
1946: 12 of 15 Congress committees chose Sardar Patel, none chose Nehru, yet Nehru became Congress president and then head of government
In 1946 the Congress president was expected to lead the government that would take over from the British. Of the 15 Pradesh Congress Committees entitled to nominate, 12 nominated Sardar Patel and none nominated Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhi said he preferred Nehru, Nehru was proposed by members of the Working Committee instead, and Patel withdrew. Nehru was declared president unopposed and went on to head the Interim Government and become Prime Minister.
Closed without a verdict
Congress presidential election, April–May 1946
1946
1946: 12 of 15 Congress committees chose Sardar Patel, none chose Nehru, yet Nehru became Congress president and then head of government
In 1946 the Congress president was expected to lead the government that would take over from the British. Of the 15 Pradesh Congress Committees entitled to nominate, 12 nominated Sardar Patel and none nominated Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhi said he preferred Nehru, Nehru was proposed by members of the Working Committee instead, and Patel withdrew. Nehru was declared president unopposed and went on to head the Interim Government and become Prime Minister.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
In 1946 the Congress president was expected to lead the government that would take over from the British. Of the 15 Pradesh Congress Committees entitled to nominate, 12 nominated Sardar Patel and none nominated Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhi said he preferred Nehru, Nehru was proposed by members of the Working Committee instead, and Patel withdrew. Nehru was declared president unopposed and went on to head the Interim Government and become Prime Minister.
Who did it
Mahatma Gandhi made his preference for Nehru known; J.B. Kripalani proposed Nehru at a Working Committee meeting; Sardar Patel withdrew at Gandhi's request. Nehru, as Congress president, was then invited to form the Interim Government.
The evidence
Of the 15 Pradesh Congress Committees that could nominate the president, 12 nominated Sardar Patel and none nominated Nehru; Nehru's name came from members of the Congress Working Committee. [1][2][3]
On 20 April 1946 Gandhi wrote to Maulana Azad: “In today's circumstances, I would, if asked, prefer Jawaharlal.” [2][3]
Per Rajmohan Gandhi's biography of Patel, Gandhi told Nehru that no committee had proposed him; Nehru stayed silent, and Gandhi then asked Patel to withdraw. [2]
Michael Brecher's biography of Nehru records that Patel “was the overwhelming choice of the Provincial Congress Committees” and that Nehru's election “was due to Gandhi's intervention”. [3]
Where it stands today
A party decision of 1946, not a legal case. The matter is closed.
What was done
Nominations closed on 29 April 1946. Patel withdrew, and Nehru was declared Congress president-elect unopposed in May 1946.
What it meant for the country
The record shows the party's own committees overruled: 12 of 15 chose Patel, none chose Nehru, and Gandhi's preference decided the outcome. What a Patel premiership would have meant for the country is not something any document can establish.
The leader preferred by 12 of 15 Congress committees did not lead the government; the man nominated by none did, from the Interim Government of 1946 to his death in 1964. [1][3]
Maulana Azad later wrote in his memoir, India Wins Freedom, that he regretted backing Nehru over Patel. [1][3]
C. Rajagopalachari wrote in 1971 that Gandhi chose Nehru even though Patel was the better administrator. [1][3]
Step by step
1946-04-20 Gandhi writes to Azad that he would prefer Nehru as Congress president. [2][3]
1946-04-25 J.B. Kripalani proposes Nehru's name at a Working Committee meeting (date as reconstructed by Urvish Kothari). [2]
1946-04-29 Nominations close: 12 of 15 Pradesh Congress Committees have nominated Patel and none has nominated Nehru. [1][2]
1946-05-09 Patel having withdrawn, the Hindustan Times reports Nehru as Congress president-elect, unopposed. [2]
1946 As Congress president, Nehru is invited by the Viceroy to form the Interim Government. [3]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a national law that set up a system for investigating and settling disputes between employers and workers [1]. Parliament made the law on 11 March 1947 and it came into force on 1 April 1947 [1]; it provides for conciliation officers, boards, labour courts, industrial tribunals and national tribunals [1], and later amendments updated public-sector definitions and state application [10][12]. The Act remains in force as amended.
A law or decision by the government
Industrial relations
1947
Mixed
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a national law that set up a system for investigating and settling disputes between employers and workers [1]. Parliament made the law on 11 March 1947 and it came into force on 1 April 1947 [1]; it provides for conciliation officers, boards, labour courts, industrial tribunals and national tribunals [1], and later amendments updated public-sector definitions and state application [10][12]. The Act remains in force as amended.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a national law that set up a system for investigating and settling disputes between employers and workers [1]. Parliament made the law on 11 March 1947 and it came into force on 1 April 1947 [1]; it provides for conciliation officers, boards, labour courts, industrial tribunals and national tribunals [1], and later amendments updated public-sector definitions and state application [10][12]. The Act remains in force as amended.
Who did it
Industrial relations
The evidence
The Act extends to the whole of India and came into force on 1 April 1947. [1]
The Act empowers the appropriate government to appoint conciliation officers and constitute Boards of Conciliation, Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals. [1]
Section 9C, as substituted, requires every industrial establishment employing twenty or more workmen to have one or more Grievance Redressal Committees; the earlier provision required a Grievance Settlement Authority in establishments with fifty or more workmen. [3]
Section 2A deems a dispute over an individual workman's discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination to be an industrial dispute, and allows a direct application to the Labour Court or Tribunal after 45 days from the conciliation application, within three years. [4]
Section 18 makes settlements and awards binding on the parties, and on heirs, successors or assigns of an employer and on workmen employed on the date of the dispute and later. [5]
Where it stands today
No pending challenge or proceeding is identified in the sources. The Act and the cited 1996 and West Bengal amendments stand enacted.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, effective 1 April 1947, to provide for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes [1]. It empowered the appropriate government to appoint conciliation officers and constitute Boards of Conciliation, Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals [1], and required grievance settlement machinery in covered establishments [3]. Parliament later amended the Act in 1996 to update references to public corporations [10], and West Bengal enacted a state amendment in 1980 [12].
What it meant for the country
The Act created a legal route for settling industrial disputes, but official 2022 statistics still record 1,020,722 mandays lost in 41 industrial-dispute work-stoppages.
Workers and employers gained a legal route to conciliation and adjudication of industrial disputes through conciliation officers, boards, labour courts, industrial tribunals and national tribunals. [1]
In 2022, the Labour Bureau recorded 41 work-stoppages due to industrial disputes (strikes and lockouts) in which 298,019 workers were involved and 1,020,722 mandays were lost. [2]
In 2022, 14 work-stoppages due to reasons other than industrial disputes involved 2,972 workers and 841,444 mandays lost. [2]
Step by step
1947-03-11 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947) was enacted 'to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and for certain other purposes.' [1]
1981-11-30 The Industrial Disputes (West Bengal Second Amendment) Act, 1980 (West Bengal Act 57 of 1980) received the President's assent, first published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 30 November 1981, to amend the Act in its application to West Bengal. [12]
1995-10-11 The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1996 was deemed to have come into force on 11 October 1995; it amended section 2(a)(i) to update references to bodies such as the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Airports Authority of India, and to include air transport service. [10]
Army jeeps bought in London, 1948: committees of Parliament found serious lapses, government closed the matter in 1955
In July 1948, during the fighting in Kashmir, India's High Commission in London signed a contract with a small British firm for 2,000 army jeeps. Only about 155 arrived in the first batch, and many did not meet the required standard. Two committees of Parliament criticised the deal, and one asked for an inquiry by High Court judges. The government refused. A review by ministers in 1952 found rule-breaking but no dishonest officer. In 1955 the government told Parliament the matter was closed. No court ever ruled on anyone's conduct.
Closed without a verdict
Nehru government; V.K. Krishna Menon (High Commissioner in London)
1948
Harm to the nation
Army jeeps bought in London, 1948: committees of Parliament found serious lapses, government closed the matter in 1955
In July 1948, during the fighting in Kashmir, India's High Commission in London signed a contract with a small British firm for 2,000 army jeeps. Only about 155 arrived in the first batch, and many did not meet the required standard. Two committees of Parliament criticised the deal, and one asked for an inquiry by High Court judges. The government refused. A review by ministers in 1952 found rule-breaking but no dishonest officer. In 1955 the government told Parliament the matter was closed. No court ever ruled on anyone's conduct.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
In July 1948, during the fighting in Kashmir, India's High Commission in London signed a contract with a small British firm for 2,000 army jeeps. Only about 155 arrived in the first batch, and many did not meet the required standard. Two committees of Parliament criticised the deal, and one asked for an inquiry by High Court judges. The government refused. A review by ministers in 1952 found rule-breaking but no dishonest officer. In 1955 the government told Parliament the matter was closed. No court ever ruled on anyone's conduct.
Who did it
V.K. Krishna Menon was India's High Commissioner (ambassador) in London, appointed by the Congress government of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. His office placed the jeep contract in 1948 for the Defence Ministry. In 1955 the Defence Minister, Dr K.N. Katju, told the Lok Sabha that the government considered the matter closed. Menon joined Nehru's cabinet in 1956.
The evidence
The Estimates Committee of Parliament, chaired by M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, said in its First Report (December 1950) that the contract was placed in July 1948 with 'Anti Mistant' Ltd., London, for 2,000 jeeps, and that the first batch of about 155 jeeps fell short of the specifications. It called this “a serious matter” and asked for an enquiry into how the contract was placed and whether the firm's background was checked. [1]
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the committee of MPs that checks government spending, recorded at its meetings of 25–26 September 1951 that the old contract was for 2,000 jeeps at £250 each, and that the first payment, for 502 jeeps, was made before the promised inspection certificates were produced. [2]
In its report of February 1952 the PAC agreed with the Comptroller and Auditor General (the government's auditor), said ministries were shifting the blame to each other, and called the new contract for 1,007 jeeps “entirely a new transaction” needing fresh approval. [2]
The PAC's Ninth Report (1954) recommended that individual responsibility should be judged by a high-level committee of one or two High Court judges. The government declined this, saying an inquiry would mean “practically an investigation into the conduct of Government itself”. [4][8]
The government said a committee of ministers chaired by the Prime Minister, helped by the then High Commissioner in London, had found in 1952 “technical and procedural irregularities” but that “the bona fides of the officers concerned could not be questioned”. [5][4][7]
On 29 September 1955 the Defence Minister, Dr K.N. Katju, told the Lok Sabha that the matter had been “fully investigated at the highest level” and should “be now considered closed”. The Speaker did not allow a debate on it. [6]
Where it stands today
Checked on 9 October 2026: the matter is closed. The government declared it closed in the Lok Sabha on 29 September 1955 and refused the inquiry by judges that the Public Accounts Committee asked for. The civil case in London was settled in 1960 with both sides dropping their claims. No criminal case was ever filed and no court ruled on anyone's conduct. Nothing is pending.
What was done
The contract was signed without first inviting tenders (open bids). It was for 2,000 jeeps at £250 each. The first payment, for 502 jeeps, was made before the inspection certificates the firm had promised were produced. A second contract for 1,007 jeeps followed. In 1960 a court case in London over the contracts was settled, with both sides dropping their claims.
What it meant for the country
Parliament's committees found that money was paid without proper checks and few usable jeeps arrived. The government's money claim was dropped in a 1960 settlement. No exact loss was ever fixed by an official body.
The Army ordered 2,000 jeeps during a war, but the first batch was about 155 jeeps, many below standard. The government's reply to the PAC in 1954 said only 49 jeeps had arrived under the “new contract”. [1][3]
Money was paid out for 502 jeeps before inspection certificates were produced. Nehru told the Lok Sabha in 1960 that 75 or 80 per cent had already been paid for the first batch. [2][10]
The government's claim in the London court was £254,498. Under the 1960 settlement it gave up that claim, and the firm gave up its own claims. [10][11]
No inquiry by judges was ever held, and no person was found responsible by any court or inquiry. [4][6]
Step by step
1948-07 The High Commission in London signs a contract with Anti Mistant Ltd. for 2,000 jeeps for the Defence Ministry. [1][2]
1950-12 The Estimates Committee, chaired by M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, reports that only about 155 jeeps came in the first batch and asks for an enquiry. [1]
1951-09-25 The Public Accounts Committee questions officials about the jeep contracts over two meetings. [2]
1952-02 The PAC's report criticises the deal and asks for monthly reports on jeep deliveries under the new contract. [2]
1952-06-04 After a review by a committee of ministers under the Prime Minister, minister N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar tells Parliament no officer's honesty is in question. [5][8]
1954 The PAC's Ninth Report asks for an inquiry by one or two High Court judges. The government's reply says only 49 jeeps have arrived under the new contract. [3][4][7]
1954-12-21 The Finance Minister tells Parliament the matter “might be treated as closed”. [8]
1955-09-29 After the PAC repeats its views in its Fourteenth Report, Defence Minister K.N. Katju tells the Lok Sabha the matter should be considered closed. [4][6]
1956 V.K. Krishna Menon joins the Union Cabinet as a minister without portfolio. He becomes Defence Minister in 1957. [12]
1960-09-02 Prime Minister Nehru tells the Lok Sabha that an out-of-court settlement of the London court case over the jeep contracts has been finalised. The agreement was laid in the Lok Sabha on 28 April 1960. [9][10][11]
Nehru government; V.K. Krishna Menon (High Commissioner in London)
1948
Benefit to the nation
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
Before 1948, Indian factory workers had no statutory health insurance scheme. Parliament passed the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, which created a social security scheme for workers, funded by contributions from employers and employees, to provide medical care and cash benefits for sickness, maternity, employment injury and death. The Act set up the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to run the scheme, and it remains in force today, extended to all 36 states and Union Territories.
A law or decision by the government
Social security for workers
1948
Benefit to the nation
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
Before 1948, Indian factory workers had no statutory health insurance scheme. Parliament passed the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, which created a social security scheme for workers, funded by contributions from employers and employees, to provide medical care and cash benefits for sickness, maternity, employment injury and death. The Act set up the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to run the scheme, and it remains in force today, extended to all 36 states and Union Territories.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Before 1948, Indian factory workers had no statutory health insurance scheme. Parliament passed the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, which created a social security scheme for workers, funded by contributions from employers and employees, to provide medical care and cash benefits for sickness, maternity, employment injury and death. The Act set up the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to run the scheme, and it remains in force today, extended to all 36 states and Union Territories.
Who did it
Social security for workers
The evidence
The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 extends to the whole of India and came into force on dates notified by the Central Government. [2][3]
The Act applies, in the first instance, to all factories, including government factories, other than seasonal factories, subject to an exception for government establishments whose employees already receive substantially similar or superior benefits. [2]
The Act established the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, to administer the scheme. [2][5]
The Central Government constitutes a Medical Benefit Council under the Act. [2]
The Appropriate Government may extend the Act to other establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise, after one month's notice in the Official Gazette. [2][3][8]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force across India. The scheme is administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and, according to the ESIC Annual Report 2023-24, has been extended to all 36 states and Union Territories. No pending challenge to the Act itself is recorded in the supplied sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, which established the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to administer a contributory social security scheme. The Corporation and state governments implement the scheme, which now applies to factories employing 10 or more persons and has been extended to all 36 states and Union Territories.
What it meant for the country
The Act created a nationwide social security scheme that insures workers in factories and other covered establishments against sickness, maternity, employment injury and death, with the scheme now extended to all 36 states and Union Territories.
The Act insures all employees in factories or covered establishments against sickness and allied disabilities, funded by contributions from employers and employees; the benefits belong to the employees. [18]
State governments are required to provide insured persons and their families reasonable medical, surgical and obstetric treatment, with costs shared between the Corporation and the State Government. [7]
The ESI Scheme has been extended to all 36 states and Union Territories, covering factories with 10 or more employees. [13]
Step by step
1948 Parliament passed the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, described by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation as the first major legislation on social security for workers in independent India. The Act extends to the whole of India and applies in the first instance to all factories other than seasonal factories. [11][2]
1978-08-09 The Supreme Court held in Royal Talkies, Hyderabad v Employees State Insurance Corporation that owners of cinema theatres were 'principal employers' liable to pay ESI contributions for persons employed by contractors in canteens and cycle stands attached to the theatres. [18]
2024-03 The ESIC Annual Report 2023-24 stated that the Act applies to factories employing 10 or more persons and that the ESI Scheme is now extended to all 36 states and Union Territories. [13]
The Factories Act, 1948 is a law that brought together and updated older rules for labour in factories. Parliament enacted it on 23 September 1948 to protect the health, safety and welfare of factory workers. It places duties on factory occupiers, gives government inspectors powers to enter and examine factories, and sets fines and jail terms for breaches. The law stands today, and the Labour Bureau, the government's labour statistics office, published a report on its implementation during 2022.
A law or decision by the government
Factory workers
1948
Mixed
Factories Act, 1948
The Factories Act, 1948 is a law that brought together and updated older rules for labour in factories. Parliament enacted it on 23 September 1948 to protect the health, safety and welfare of factory workers. It places duties on factory occupiers, gives government inspectors powers to enter and examine factories, and sets fines and jail terms for breaches. The law stands today, and the Labour Bureau, the government's labour statistics office, published a report on its implementation during 2022.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Factories Act, 1948 is a law that brought together and updated older rules for labour in factories. Parliament enacted it on 23 September 1948 to protect the health, safety and welfare of factory workers. It places duties on factory occupiers, gives government inspectors powers to enter and examine factories, and sets fines and jail terms for breaches. The law stands today, and the Labour Bureau, the government's labour statistics office, published a report on its implementation during 2022.
Who did it
Factory workers
The evidence
The Factories Act, 1948 was enacted on 23 September 1948 as Act No. 63 of 1948 to consolidate and amend the law regulating labour in factories. [6][7][9]
Section 7A requires every occupier to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the factory. [2]
Section 92 sets a general penalty of imprisonment up to two years or fine up to ₹1 lakh or both for contravention, with a minimum fine of ₹25,000 where an accident causes death and ₹5,000 where it causes serious bodily injury. [1]
Section 9 gives inspectors powers to enter factories, examine premises, inquire into accidents, require production of registers, seize documents, and direct dismantling of dangerous articles. [4]
Section 97 makes a worker who contravenes any duty imposed on workers punishable with a fine up to ₹500. [3]
Where it stands today
The Act is in force. No court challenge, repeal or replacement is recorded in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Factories Act, 1948 (Act No. 63 of 1948) on 23 September 1948 to consolidate and amend the law regulating labour in factories. The Act requires every occupier to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all workers while at work, gives inspectors powers of entry, examination and seizure, and sets penalties for contravention. The Labour Bureau published a report on the Act's implementation during 2022.
What it meant for the country
The Act gave factory workers statutory protection of health, safety and welfare with penalties for breach, but the 2022 enforcement record shows only 16.85 per cent of registered working factories submitted returns.
Factory workers gained a statutory duty on occupiers to ensure their health, safety and welfare at work, including a written safety policy that must be brought to the notice of all workers. [2]
Breach of the Act is punishable with imprisonment up to two years or fine up to ₹1 lakh, and where a contravention causes death the fine cannot be less than ₹25,000. [1]
Inspectors were empowered to enter factories, examine premises, inquire into accidents, seize documents, and direct dismantling of articles that appear dangerous to workers' health or safety. [4]
In 2022, only 16.85 per cent of registered working factories submitted returns, and 20.91 per cent of recorded offences related to safety provisions, as reported by the Labour Bureau. [8]
Step by step
1948-09-23 The Factories Act, 1948 (Act No. 63 of 1948) was enacted to consolidate and amend the law regulating labour in factories. [6][7][9]
1987-12-01 Section 7A, imposing general duties on the occupier to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all workers while at work, came into effect through the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987. [7]
2022 The Labour Bureau published its report on implementation of the Factories Act, 1948 during 2022, recording that 84.16 per cent of total registered factories were working and 16.85 per cent of registered working factories submitted returns. [8]
Kashmir taken to the UN Security Council, January 1948
In 1947, the Government of India passed a law allowing it to carry out United Nations Security Council measures that do not involve armed force, such as cutting off economic or diplomatic relations. Around the end of October 1947, Kashmir acceded to India. In a Constituent Assembly debate on 27 May 1949, members said India had accepted a United Nations decision to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and that an administrator had been appointed.
A law or decision by the government
Nehru government
1948
Kashmir taken to the UN Security Council, January 1948
In 1947, the Government of India passed a law allowing it to carry out United Nations Security Council measures that do not involve armed force, such as cutting off economic or diplomatic relations. Around the end of October 1947, Kashmir acceded to India. In a Constituent Assembly debate on 27 May 1949, members said India had accepted a United Nations decision to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and that an administrator had been appointed.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1947, the Government of India passed a law allowing it to carry out United Nations Security Council measures that do not involve armed force, such as cutting off economic or diplomatic relations. Around the end of October 1947, Kashmir acceded to India. In a Constituent Assembly debate on 27 May 1949, members said India had accepted a United Nations decision to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and that an administrator had been appointed.
Who did it
Nehru government
The evidence
The United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 (Act 43 of 1947) was published and commenced on 20 December 1947, to enable effect to be given to Article 41 of the UN Charter. [2]
Under the Act, if the Security Council calls upon the Central Government to apply non-armed measures, the Central Government may by order make provisions including extra-territorial operation and punishment of persons offending against the order. [2]
In a Constituent Assembly debate on 27 May 1949, it was said that after 15 August 1947 Kashmir stood by itself until around the end of October 1947, when it acceded to India. [24]
In the same debate, it was said that in March 1948 a popular interim government of ministers replaced the emergency administration. [24]
A member moved amendments to provide that seats for Jammu and Kashmir be filled pending a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation and without prejudice to its result; another member said India had accepted the UN decision to hold the plebiscite and an administrator had been appointed. [24]
Where it stands today
No pending or concluded proceedings are identified in the sources. The United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 remains listed as enacted.
What was done
The Government of India enacted the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 on 20 December 1947, empowering the Central Government to apply non-military measures called for by the Security Council. In a Constituent Assembly debate on 27 May 1949, it was stated that India had accepted the United Nations decision to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and that an administrator had been appointed.
What it meant for the country
The cited records do not state any consequences for the country, such as losses, casualties, or rights affected.
1947-10 As stated in a later Constituent Assembly debate, Kashmir acceded to India around the end of October 1947, after standing by itself following 15 August 1947. [24]
1947-12-20 Parliament enacted the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 (Act 43 of 1947), enabling the Central Government to apply Security Council measures under Article 41 of the UN Charter, including non-armed measures and punishment for offences against orders. [2]
1948-03 As stated in the same debate, an emergency administration in Kashmir was replaced by a popular interim government consisting of a council of ministers in March 1948. [24]
1949-05-27 In the Constituent Assembly, members said India had accepted the United Nations decision to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and that an administrator had been appointed; amendments were moved to fill Jammu and Kashmir seats pending the plebiscite under UN auspices and without prejudice to its result. [24]
Kashmir UN Security Council reference and Resolution 47
In 1947, India enacted a law allowing the Central Government to give effect to measures called for by the United Nations Security Council under Article 41 of the UN Charter. The Constitution of India, 1950, contained Article 370, a temporary provision giving Jammu and Kashmir special status and limiting Parliament's power to make laws for the State. In 2019, Article 370 was rendered inoperative by a Presidential order, so the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir stood inoperative and a single constitution applied to all Indian states.
Closed without a verdict
Kashmir reference to the UN Security Council
1948
Kashmir UN Security Council reference and Resolution 47
In 1947, India enacted a law allowing the Central Government to give effect to measures called for by the United Nations Security Council under Article 41 of the UN Charter. The Constitution of India, 1950, contained Article 370, a temporary provision giving Jammu and Kashmir special status and limiting Parliament's power to make laws for the State. In 2019, Article 370 was rendered inoperative by a Presidential order, so the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir stood inoperative and a single constitution applied to all Indian states.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
In 1947, India enacted a law allowing the Central Government to give effect to measures called for by the United Nations Security Council under Article 41 of the UN Charter. The Constitution of India, 1950, contained Article 370, a temporary provision giving Jammu and Kashmir special status and limiting Parliament's power to make laws for the State. In 2019, Article 370 was rendered inoperative by a Presidential order, so the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir stood inoperative and a single constitution applied to all Indian states.
Who did it
Kashmir reference to the UN Security Council
The evidence
The United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 (Act 43 of 1947) was published and commenced on 20 December 1947. It enabled the Central Government to make provisions to apply measures called for by the UN Security Council under Article 41 of the UN Charter. [2]
Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 1950, was a temporary provision for Jammu and Kashmir. It limited Parliament's power to make laws for the State to matters declared by the President to correspond to the Instrument of Accession, with consultation or concurrence of the State Government, and allowed the President to extend other provisions with exceptions and modifications. [6]
Article 370(3) allowed the President to declare the article inoperative, but required the recommendation of the State's Constituent Assembly. [5][6]
As reported by Indian Kanoon, in April 2018 the Supreme Court ruled that Article 370 had attained permanency since the state constituent assembly had ceased to exist. [5][7]
As reported by Indian Kanoon, the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 superseded the 1954 order and rendered Article 370 inoperative, so the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir stood inoperative and a single constitution applied to all Indian states. [5][7]
Where it stands today
The retrieved documents do not show any pending proceeding. Article 370 was rendered inoperative in 2019 by the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019.
What was done
The Government of India enacted the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947, which allowed the Central Government to make provisions to apply Security Council measures under Article 41 of the UN Charter. The Constitution of India, 1950, included Article 370 as a temporary provision for Jammu and Kashmir; in 2019, the article was rendered inoperative by the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019.
What it meant for the country
The retrieved documents record that Article 370 gave Jammu and Kashmir special status and was later rendered inoperative, but they do not establish the consequences for people, money or rights beyond that legal change.
Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 1950, gave Jammu and Kashmir special status and limited Parliament's power to make laws for the State to matters declared by the President to correspond to the Instrument of Accession, with consultation or concurrence of the State Government. [6]
In 2019, the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 superseded the 1954 order and rendered Article 370 inoperative, so the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir stood inoperative and a single constitution applied to all Indian states. [5][7]
The United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 enabled the Central Government to apply measures called for by the UN Security Council under Article 41 of the UN Charter, including complete or partial interruption of economic relations and communications. [2]
Step by step
1947-12-20 The United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 (Act 43 of 1947) was published and commenced. It enabled the Central Government to make provisions to apply measures called for by the UN Security Council under Article 41 of the UN Charter, including economic and communication restrictions. [2]
1948-01-27 The Constituent Assembly recorded that on 14 and 15 December 1947 rulers had agreed to transfer, and on 1 January 1948 actually transferred, all their rights, authority and jurisdiction in their States to the Government of the Indian Dominion. [1]
1950-01 Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 1950, came into force as a temporary provision with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It limited Parliament's power to make laws for the State and allowed the President to extend other constitutional provisions with exceptions and modifications. [6]
2018-04 As reported by Indian Kanoon, the Supreme Court of India ruled that Article 370 had attained permanency since the state constituent assembly had ceased to exist. [5][7]
2019-08 As reported by Indian Kanoon, the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 superseded the 1954 order and rendered Article 370 inoperative, so the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir stood inoperative and a single constitution applied to all Indian states. [5][7]
In India, many low-paid workers had no legal floor on what they could be paid for listed jobs. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 created a nationwide scheme under which the appropriate government — the central government for railways, mines, oil-fields, major ports and central corporations, and state governments otherwise — had to fix minimum pay for scheduled employments, review the rates at least every five years, and require cash payment, overtime pay and days of rest. Courts applied the law to railway track construction and maintenance and allowed workers to recover unpaid minimum pay under this Act as well as the Payment of Wages Act. Amendments in 1954, 1957 and 1961 treated earlier wage fixes as lawful, and the Act and its validating amendments stand as law on the record.
A law or decision by the government
Workers' rights
1948
Benefit to the nation
Minimum Wages Act, 1948
In India, many low-paid workers had no legal floor on what they could be paid for listed jobs. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 created a nationwide scheme under which the appropriate government — the central government for railways, mines, oil-fields, major ports and central corporations, and state governments otherwise — had to fix minimum pay for scheduled employments, review the rates at least every five years, and require cash payment, overtime pay and days of rest. Courts applied the law to railway track construction and maintenance and allowed workers to recover unpaid minimum pay under this Act as well as the Payment of Wages Act. Amendments in 1954, 1957 and 1961 treated earlier wage fixes as lawful, and the Act and its validating amendments stand as law on the record.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In India, many low-paid workers had no legal floor on what they could be paid for listed jobs. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 created a nationwide scheme under which the appropriate government — the central government for railways, mines, oil-fields, major ports and central corporations, and state governments otherwise — had to fix minimum pay for scheduled employments, review the rates at least every five years, and require cash payment, overtime pay and days of rest. Courts applied the law to railway track construction and maintenance and allowed workers to recover unpaid minimum pay under this Act as well as the Payment of Wages Act. Amendments in 1954, 1957 and 1961 treated earlier wage fixes as lawful, and the Act and its validating amendments stand as law on the record.
Who did it
Workers' rights
The evidence
The Act extended to the whole of India and was described as an Act to provide for minimum rates of wages in certain employments. [13][6][7]
The appropriate government is the central government for scheduled employment under central government authority, railways, mines, oil-fields, major ports or central corporations; otherwise it is the state government. [14][6]
Section 3 required the appropriate government to fix minimum wage rates for employment in Part I or Part II of the Schedule, to review those rates at intervals not exceeding five years, and to revise them if necessary; if not reviewed, existing rates continued in force. [4][13]
Minimum wage rates could be a basic rate plus a cost of living allowance, a basic rate with the cash value of essential commodity concessions, or an all-inclusive rate. [1][10]
Section 5 required either committees and sub-committees to hold inquiries and advise, or a Gazette notification publishing proposals with at least two months' notice before rates were fixed or revised. [15][11]
Where it stands today
No challenge to the validity of the Act is recorded in the sources. The statute remains in force as cited; the wage-recovery disputes in the sources were decided on the points described, and no appeal or later stage is shown in the provided documents.
What was done
The legislature enacted the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, imposing a duty on the appropriate government to fix and revise minimum wages for scheduled employments. The central and state governments were required to issue Gazette notifications fixing rates after inquiry or consultation, and the legislature passed amendments in 1954, 1957 and 1961 validating certain earlier wage fixations.
What it meant for the country
The documents record a legally enforceable minimum-wage and overtime floor for scheduled employments, with court rulings that preserved workers' ability to recover unpaid wages; no adverse outcome is documented.
The law gave workers in scheduled employments an enforceable minimum: employers had to pay wages at not less than the notified minimum rate for that class without unauthorised deductions, and overtime for work beyond the normal working day. [6][7][13][3]
In a wage-recovery case against the Central Railway, workers said they were made to work 8.5 hours a day when the Act's normal day was presented as 8 hours, and sought the difference between minimum wages and pay and overtime; the High Court held railway track construction and maintenance fell within entry 7 of the Schedule. [6][7]
The court in another case held that minimum wages are wages under the Payment of Wages Act, so workers covered by both laws could use either remedy, including where a contractual wage below the minimum was null and void. [9]
Minimum-rate reviews had to happen no more than five years apart; where a review was missed, the old rates continued, maintaining a wage floor. [4][13]
Step by step
1948-03-15 The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 came into force; it extended to the whole of India and was described as an Act to provide for minimum rates of wages in certain employments. [6][7][13]
1952-03-31 A Central Government notification fixed minimum rates of wages for employees in road construction or building operations on certain railways, including the Central Railway. [6][7]
1953-06-16 A notification under section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act brought a further category of employment within the Act and declared the minimum wages payable to those workers. [9]
1954 The Minimum Wages (Amendment) Act, 1954 added a validation clause for minimum wage rates fixed from 1 April 1952 until its commencement. [8]
1957-09 Entry 7 in Part I of the Schedule was substituted by the Minimum Wages (Amendment) Act, 1957 with retrospective effect from 15 March 1948, so that construction or maintenance of railway tracks came under construction or maintenance of roads. [6][7]
1961 The Minimum Wages (Amendment) Act, 1961 added a further validation period from 31 December 1959 until its commencement. [8]
Nationalisation of the Reserve Bank of India, 1948
The Reserve Bank of India, the country's central bank, was originally a shareholders' bank. In 1948 a law was passed to bring its capital into public ownership. On 1 January 1949 all shares were transferred to the Central Government, and shareholders were to be paid ₹118 and 10 annas per share in government promissory notes. The law stands and the Reserve Bank is publicly owned.
A law or decision by the government
Reserve Bank of India and its shareholders
1948
Benefit to the nation
Nationalisation of the Reserve Bank of India, 1948
The Reserve Bank of India, the country's central bank, was originally a shareholders' bank. In 1948 a law was passed to bring its capital into public ownership. On 1 January 1949 all shares were transferred to the Central Government, and shareholders were to be paid ₹118 and 10 annas per share in government promissory notes. The law stands and the Reserve Bank is publicly owned.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Reserve Bank of India, the country's central bank, was originally a shareholders' bank. In 1948 a law was passed to bring its capital into public ownership. On 1 January 1949 all shares were transferred to the Central Government, and shareholders were to be paid ₹118 and 10 annas per share in government promissory notes. The law stands and the Reserve Bank is publicly owned.
Who did it
Reserve Bank of India and its shareholders
The evidence
The Reserve Bank (Transfer to Public Ownership) Act, 1948 was enacted on 23 September 1948 to bring the Reserve Bank's capital into public ownership. [3][4][7]
The appointed day under the Act was 1 January 1949, notified on 18 October 1948. [3][4][6]
On the appointed day, all shares in the Reserve Bank were transferred to the Central Government free of all trusts, liabilities and encumbrances. [3][4]
Compensation was set at ₹118 and 10 annas per share in 3% Central Government promissory notes, repayable at face value; directors' shares obtained at par were compensated at ₹100 per share. [3][4]
Shareholders were entitled to unpaid dividends for the year ending 30 June 1948 or earlier, and to dividends at ₹4 a year for 1 July 1948 to the appointed day. [3][4]
Where it stands today
No proceedings are shown as pending. The transfer took effect on 1 January 1949 and the Act remains in force.
What was done
The Reserve Bank (Transfer to Public Ownership) Act, 1948 was enacted on 23 September 1948. The Central Government fixed 1 January 1949 as the appointed day. On that day the Act transferred all Reserve Bank shares to the Central Government, removed the existing directors, and set the compensation for shareholders.
What it meant for the country
The record shows a gain of public control: the Reserve Bank's entire share capital was transferred to the Central Government, while shareholders were provided compensation.
The Reserve Bank's entire share capital passed to the Central Government, ending shareholder ownership of the central bank. [3][4]
Shareholders were entitled to compensation of ₹118 and 10 annas per share in 3% Central Government promissory notes; shares obtained at par by directors were compensated at ₹100 per share. [3][4]
Shareholders retained entitlement to unpaid dividends up to 30 June 1948 and to dividends at ₹4 a year for the period from 1 July 1948 to the appointed day. [3][4]
Existing Central Board directors (except the Governor or Deputy Governor) and Local Board members had to vacate office, and the boards were to be reconstituted under the amended Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. [3][4][8]
The Central Government was empowered to make rules for paying compensation and determining who was entitled to it. [3][4]
Step by step
1948-09-23 The Reserve Bank (Transfer to Public Ownership) Act, 1948 was enacted to bring the capital of the Reserve Bank of India into public ownership and make consequential amendments to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. [3][4][7]
1948-10-18 The Central Government notified 1 January 1949 as the appointed day under the Act. [3][4][6]
1949-01-01 On the appointed day, all shares in the Reserve Bank were transferred by law to the Central Government free of all trusts, liabilities and encumbrances (legal claims). Compensation was set at ₹118 and 10 annas per share in Central Government promissory notes bearing 3% interest a year, repayable at face value; shares obtained at par by directors were compensated at ₹100 per share. Directors of the Central Board (other than the Governor or Deputy Governor) and members of Local Boards vacated office. [3][4][8]
Abolition of separate electorates and reservation of seats, 1949–50
Before independence, British India had separate electorates: Muslims, Sikhs and other groups voted in separate pools and could elect only candidates from their own community. The Constituent Assembly first accepted joint electorates with reserved seats for minorities in August 1947, then on 11 May 1949 its Advisory Committee on Minorities recommended ending reservation for religious minorities and keeping it only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Assembly adopted that position, and the Constitution that came into force on 26 January 1950 reserves seats in the House of the People and state assemblies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, not for religious communities. The provisions remain in force.
A law or decision by the government
Abolition of separate electorates and communal representation
1949
Benefit to the nation
Abolition of separate electorates and reservation of seats, 1949–50
Before independence, British India had separate electorates: Muslims, Sikhs and other groups voted in separate pools and could elect only candidates from their own community. The Constituent Assembly first accepted joint electorates with reserved seats for minorities in August 1947, then on 11 May 1949 its Advisory Committee on Minorities recommended ending reservation for religious minorities and keeping it only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Assembly adopted that position, and the Constitution that came into force on 26 January 1950 reserves seats in the House of the People and state assemblies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, not for religious communities. The provisions remain in force.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Before independence, British India had separate electorates: Muslims, Sikhs and other groups voted in separate pools and could elect only candidates from their own community. The Constituent Assembly first accepted joint electorates with reserved seats for minorities in August 1947, then on 11 May 1949 its Advisory Committee on Minorities recommended ending reservation for religious minorities and keeping it only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Assembly adopted that position, and the Constitution that came into force on 26 January 1950 reserves seats in the House of the People and state assemblies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, not for religious communities. The provisions remain in force.
Who did it
Abolition of separate electorates and communal representation
The evidence
The Constituent Assembly accepted joint electorates with reservation of seats as one of four safeguards around 27–28 August 1947. [3]
The Advisory Committee on Minorities submitted its report on political safeguards for minorities on 11 May 1949. [3][12]
The Minorities Committee adopted a resolution that the system of reservation for minorities other than Scheduled Castes in legislatures be abolished. [3]
The debate recorded that separate electorates did create a cleavage among the various communities. [1]
The Constitution does not provide for reservation of seats on communal basis, but only for the depressed classes who are Hindus and the tribal people, on account of their backwardness. [4]
Where it stands today
No proceedings are pending. The constitutional provisions on reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes remain in force.
What was done
The Constituent Assembly, on the recommendation of its Advisory Committee on Minorities, removed separate electorates and statutory reservation of seats for religious minorities, and retained reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Constitution adopted on 26 November 1949 and in force from 26 January 1950 gives effect to this in Articles 330 and 332.
What it meant for the country
The change is recorded as beneficial: the Constitution removed separate electorates that had 'poisoned our political life for so many years' and created a cleavage among communities, while securing reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Separate electorates, which the Assembly debate recorded had 'poisoned our political life for so many years' and created a cleavage among communities, were removed. [4][1]
Reserved seats were retained for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and in state legislative assemblies, securing representation for those groups. [5][8]
Statutory reservation of seats for religious minorities in legislatures was abolished. [3]
The Constitution also reserves seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in every Panchayat and every Municipality. [10][9]
Step by step
1947-08-27 The Constituent Assembly took up the Report of the Advisory Committee on Minorities. The safeguards accepted around 27–28 August 1947 included four provisions, the first being joint electorates with reservation of seats. [11][3]
1949-05-11 The Advisory Committee on Minorities submitted its report dated 11 May 1949 on certain political safeguards for minorities. [3][12]
1949-05-25 The Constituent Assembly resolved to take into consideration the Advisory Committee's report of 11 May 1949. [12]
1949-05-26 In debate, members supported the revised decision doing away with reservation of seats. Speakers recorded that separate electorates had created a cleavage among communities, that the Minorities Advisory Committee felt reservation should go, and that reserved seats had been kept for Scheduled Castes. [1]
1949-10-14 The Assembly debated the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts. The debate recorded that the Minorities Committee had adopted a resolution that the system of reservation for minorities other than Scheduled Castes in legislatures be abolished, and that statutory reservation of seats should be abolished. [3]
1949-11-16 The Assembly dealt with transitional article 388 on filling vacancies left by members of the Scheduled Caste, Muslim or Sikh community leaving an Assembly. The debate noted that the Cabinet Mission scheme had separate electorates for General, Sikh and Muslim communities. [2]
1949-11-26 In the Constituent Assembly, the debate recorded that the Constitution does not provide for reservation of seats on communal basis, but only for the depressed classes who are Hindus and the tribal people, on account of their backwardness. [4]
1950-01-26 The Constitution commenced. Article 330 provided reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People, and Article 332 provided reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States. [2][5][8]
Abolition of separate electorates and communal representation
1949
Harm to the nation
Article 370, 1949: Jammu and Kashmir kept outside much of India's law for 70 years
In October 1949 the Constituent Assembly adopted a special provision for Jammu and Kashmir, later numbered Article 370. A 1954 Presidential Order made under it added Article 35A, which let the State decide who counted as a permanent resident and keep jobs, property and scholarships for them. Many central laws did not reach the State until Article 370 was removed in 2019; in 2023 the Supreme Court held that it had always been a temporary provision.
A law or decision by the government
Government of Jawaharlal Nehru; Constituent Assembly of India
1949
Harm to the nation
Article 370, 1949: Jammu and Kashmir kept outside much of India's law for 70 years
In October 1949 the Constituent Assembly adopted a special provision for Jammu and Kashmir, later numbered Article 370. A 1954 Presidential Order made under it added Article 35A, which let the State decide who counted as a permanent resident and keep jobs, property and scholarships for them. Many central laws did not reach the State until Article 370 was removed in 2019; in 2023 the Supreme Court held that it had always been a temporary provision.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In October 1949 the Constituent Assembly adopted a special provision for Jammu and Kashmir, later numbered Article 370. A 1954 Presidential Order made under it added Article 35A, which let the State decide who counted as a permanent resident and keep jobs, property and scholarships for them. Many central laws did not reach the State until Article 370 was removed in 2019; in 2023 the Supreme Court held that it had always been a temporary provision.
Who did it
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's Congress government. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar moved the provision in the Constituent Assembly on 17 October 1949. The 1954 Order that added Article 35A was issued by the President on the advice of Nehru's cabinet.
The evidence
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar moved draft Article 306A on 17 October 1949, citing the war in Kashmir and the United Nations' involvement. Maulana Hasrat Mohani interrupted to ask why the State was being treated differently. The draft was adopted as Article 370. [1]
Article 35A was added by the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954. It let the State legislature define permanent residents and give them special rights in public-sector jobs, buying property, scholarships and other public aid. [2]
The Union Home Ministry told the Rajya Sabha on 7 February 2024 that before the abrogation, residents were deprived of the benefits of a number of progressive laws, and named Acts that were extended to J&K only after 2019. [3]
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held on 11 December 2023 that Article 370 was a temporary provision, that J&K did not retain internal sovereignty when it joined India, and upheld the 2019 abrogation. [4][5]
Where it stands today
Article 370 was abrogated on 5 August 2019, and the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation on 11 December 2023. The matter is settled.
What was done
Draft Article 306A was moved on 17 October 1949 and adopted as Article 370. The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 added Article 35A. Article 370 was abrogated on 5 August 2019.
What it meant for the country
For 70 years Article 370 and the Article 35A it enabled kept Jammu and Kashmir outside much of India's law: jobs, property and scholarships were closed to non-permanent residents, and laws such as the Right to Education and the SC/ST Atrocities Act did not apply until 2019. The documents record the rights withheld; they do not put a single figure on the cost.
Under Article 35A, government jobs, the right to buy property and State scholarships were kept for permanent residents alone, as defined by the State. [2]
As reported by The Wire, Valmiki families brought into the State to work as sweepers were denied education, job, voting and residence rights for over 60 years under these rules. [6]
For 70 years, central laws did not apply to Jammu and Kashmir automatically. Among those extended only after 2019, the Home Ministry named the Right to Education Act, 2009, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Forest Rights Act, 2006, the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. [3]
The Supreme Court found that the provision was meant to be temporary and that J&K never held internal sovereignty, yet it remained in force from 1949 until 2019. [4][5]
Step by step
1949-10-17 Draft Article 306A is moved in the Constituent Assembly by N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar and adopted as Article 370. [1]
1954-05-14 The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 adds Article 35A. [2]
2019-08-05 Article 370 is abrogated and central laws are extended to Jammu and Kashmir. [3][4]
2023-12-11 The Supreme Court upholds the abrogation and holds that Article 370 was a temporary provision. [4][5]
2024-02-07 The Home Ministry tells the Rajya Sabha that residents had been deprived of progressive laws before 2019. [3]
Government of Jawaharlal Nehru; Constituent Assembly of India
1950
Mixed
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950
After India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947, many people who moved to Pakistan left property behind in India. The government first issued temporary orders in different provinces to manage this 'evacuee property', and in April 1950 Parliament passed the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which put one central system in place. Under it, an official called the Custodian could declare property to be evacuee property, the property then passed to the Custodian, and the Custodian could manage, transfer or sell it. Later changes stopped new declarations after 8 April 1955 and allowed the government to take over evacuees' ownership rights and use the properties to pay compensation to people displaced from Pakistan. The Act remains in force in most of India, though no new property can be declared evacuee after 1955.
A law or decision by the government
Evacuee property and Partition
1950
Mixed
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950
After India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947, many people who moved to Pakistan left property behind in India. The government first issued temporary orders in different provinces to manage this 'evacuee property', and in April 1950 Parliament passed the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which put one central system in place. Under it, an official called the Custodian could declare property to be evacuee property, the property then passed to the Custodian, and the Custodian could manage, transfer or sell it. Later changes stopped new declarations after 8 April 1955 and allowed the government to take over evacuees' ownership rights and use the properties to pay compensation to people displaced from Pakistan. The Act remains in force in most of India, though no new property can be declared evacuee after 1955.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
After India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947, many people who moved to Pakistan left property behind in India. The government first issued temporary orders in different provinces to manage this 'evacuee property', and in April 1950 Parliament passed the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which put one central system in place. Under it, an official called the Custodian could declare property to be evacuee property, the property then passed to the Custodian, and the Custodian could manage, transfer or sell it. Later changes stopped new declarations after 8 April 1955 and allowed the government to take over evacuees' ownership rights and use the properties to pay compensation to people displaced from Pakistan. The Act remains in force in most of India, though no new property can be declared evacuee after 1955.
Who did it
Evacuee property and Partition
The evidence
The Act extends to the whole of India except Assam, West Bengal, Tripura, Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir. [2]
The Custodian may declare property evacuee after notice and inquiry; pending determination, the property cannot be transferred or charged except with the Custodian's leave. [3]
Property declared evacuee is deemed to have vested in the Custodian from the date the evacuee left, or from 15 August 1947, or from the date of notice, depending on the case. [5]
The Custodian has wide powers, including carrying on the evacuee's business, appointing a manager, entering premises, searching buildings, recovering debts, and transferring property with the Custodian-General's approval. [4]
A person aggrieved by certain declarations may appeal to the district judge. [8]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force except in Assam, West Bengal, Tripura, Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir. No notice declaring a property evacuee could be issued after 8 April 1955. Appeals against certain declarations lie to the district judge, and the Custodian-General has revisional powers. No specific pending proceeding is identified in the sources.
What was done
Parliament passed the Act in April 1950, replacing earlier provincial and central ordinances. The Custodian declared properties evacuee and took them over; the 1954 amendment ended new declarations and provided for acquiring evacuees' rights to compensate displaced persons.
What it meant for the country
The record shows both loss and gain: evacuees lost ownership of properties in India, which were used to compensate and rehabilitate displaced persons, and the Custodian could evict occupants.
Evacuees lost their right, title and interest in properties in India: the 1954 amendment provided for acquiring those rights and using the properties to pay compensation to displaced persons. [1]
The Custodian could take possession of separated evacuee property by evicting the claimant and other occupants, using force if necessary. [6]
Evacuee interests determined under the scheme went to the compensation pool for rehabilitation of displaced persons. [11]
A specific Lucknow property, No. 11 Kaiserbagh, was declared evacuee property after its owner migrated to Pakistan and was later sold to Ram Chand Kohli; the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the declaration. [10]
Civil courts were barred from executing decrees concerning evacuee property, and an amendment was proposed after some civil courts appointed receivers, contrary to the India-Pakistan understanding. [1]
Step by step
1947 The East Punjab government issued an ordinance, later converted into the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947. [1]
1949-06-13 The Governor-General issued the Administration of Evacuee Property (Chief Commissioners' Provinces) Ordinance, 1949 (XII of 1949). [1]
1949-10-12 The Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Lucknow, declared No. 11, Kaiserbagh evacuee property after its owner migrated to Pakistan. [10]
1949-10-18 The Governor-General issued the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (XXVII of 1949), extending to all provinces except Assam and West Bengal and to acceding states except Cooch-Behar, Manipur and Tripura. [1]
1949-12 The Hyderabad State Government issued a Regulation for administration of evacuee property on similar lines. [1]
1950-04 Parliament passed the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950). [1]
1950-06 India and Pakistan agreed that property of joint stock companies would be treated as evacuee property if holders of majority shares had migrated to Pakistan. [1]
1950-08-05 The Gazette of India published the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Bill, 1950, to extend section 58 to include the Hyderabad Regulation with retrospective effect. [1]
1951 Parliament enacted the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, to separate evacuee interests in composite property. [6]
1952-04-23 The Rajasthan High Court in Raghunandanlal v State of Rajasthan held that equity of redemption vested in the Custodian when the Rajasthan Ordinance came into force, and the Ordinance was repealed by the 1950 Act. [9]
1954 The Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1954 ended certain sections and provided for acquiring evacuee owners' right, title and interest to use properties for compensation to displaced persons. [1]
1955-04-08 No notice declaring a property evacuee could be issued after this date. [1]
1966 The Supreme Court in Bishambar Nath Kohli v State of Uttar Pradesh held that orders passed under earlier ordinances were deemed to be under the 1950 Act and subject to its appellate and revisional jurisdiction. [10]
After Partition, many people came into Assam from outside India, and the Indian Parliament made a law in 1950 allowing the government to expel some of them. The law gave the Central Government the power to order a person or group to leave India or Assam if their stay was considered harmful to the public or to Scheduled Tribes in Assam. The law is still in force and was used as recently as December 2025 to expel a person from Assam, according to a 2026 court record.
A law or decision by the government
Immigration and Assam
1950
Harm to the nation
Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950
After Partition, many people came into Assam from outside India, and the Indian Parliament made a law in 1950 allowing the government to expel some of them. The law gave the Central Government the power to order a person or group to leave India or Assam if their stay was considered harmful to the public or to Scheduled Tribes in Assam. The law is still in force and was used as recently as December 2025 to expel a person from Assam, according to a 2026 court record.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
After Partition, many people came into Assam from outside India, and the Indian Parliament made a law in 1950 allowing the government to expel some of them. The law gave the Central Government the power to order a person or group to leave India or Assam if their stay was considered harmful to the public or to Scheduled Tribes in Assam. The law is still in force and was used as recently as December 2025 to expel a person from Assam, according to a 2026 court record.
Who did it
Immigration and Assam
The evidence
The Act is titled the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 and extends to the whole of India. [1][3]
Section 2 allows the Central Government to direct a person or class of persons who came into Assam from outside India to remove themselves from India or Assam if their stay is considered detrimental to the general public, any section of it, or any Scheduled Tribe in Assam. [4]
Persons displaced by civil disturbances in areas forming Pakistan and subsequently residing in Assam are exempt from expulsion. [4]
The Central Government may delegate its powers under Section 2 to subordinate officers and to the governments of Assam, Meghalaya or Nagaland, as adapted. [5]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force. A court record dated 25 March 2026 concerns an expulsion order made under the Act, in a matter recorded as vs The Union of India and 8 Ors. The source does not state the final outcome.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, giving the Central Government power to order removal from India or Assam of a person whose stay was considered against public or Scheduled Tribe interests. The government delegated that power by gazette notification, and the law allows the use of force. A court record of 2026 shows an expulsion order dated 26 December 2025 was made under this power and the person was expelled without a hearing.
What it meant for the country
The record shows the law has been used to expel a person from Assam in 2025 without a hearing, with fundamental rights questioned in court, so its documented consequence is harmful.
The Act gave the government authority to order a person to leave India or Assam and to use force, curtailing the person's liberty and residence. [4][10]
In a 2026 court matter, a person was expelled from Assam under an order dated 26.12.2025 without being given an opportunity of being heard, and the court considered whether fundamental rights had been infringed. [7]
Step by step
1950-03-01 The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 came into force. It was made by Parliament to provide for the expulsion of certain immigrants from Assam. [6][9]
1950-03-20 The Central Government published Notification No. F.17-150-Pak.III in the Gazette of India, delegating powers under Section 3 of the Act. [5]
2025-12-26 An expulsion order was issued under Section 2 of the Act against the father of a petitioner, as recorded in a judicial matter dated 25 March 2026. The person was expelled without being given an opportunity of being heard. [7]
2026-03-25 A judicial record dated 25 March 2026 considered the expulsion order of 26 December 2025 and examined whether the expulsion infringed fundamental rights. [7]
Preventive detention meant the government could order a person to be detained if it was satisfied this was needed to stop harm to India's defence, security, public order or essential supplies. The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 gave this power to the Central Government or a State Government and was set to end on 31 December 1969. In 1971 a successor law, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, repeated the detention power and set a maximum detention period of twelve months.
A law or decision by the government
Nehru government
1950
Harm to the nation
The Preventive Detention Act, 1950
Preventive detention meant the government could order a person to be detained if it was satisfied this was needed to stop harm to India's defence, security, public order or essential supplies. The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 gave this power to the Central Government or a State Government and was set to end on 31 December 1969. In 1971 a successor law, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, repeated the detention power and set a maximum detention period of twelve months.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Preventive detention meant the government could order a person to be detained if it was satisfied this was needed to stop harm to India's defence, security, public order or essential supplies. The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 gave this power to the Central Government or a State Government and was set to end on 31 December 1969. In 1971 a successor law, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, repeated the detention power and set a maximum detention period of twelve months.
Who did it
Nehru government
The evidence
The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 extended to the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, and was to cease to have effect on 31 December 1969, saving acts done or omitted before that date. [3][7]
The Central Government or State Government could order a person to be detained if satisfied it was necessary to prevent the person from acting prejudicially to India's defence, foreign relations, security, state security, public order, or essential supplies and services. [6]
District Magistrates, specially empowered Additional District Magistrates, the Commissioners of Police for Bombay, Calcutta, Madras or Hyderabad, and Collectors in former Hyderabad territories could also make detention orders in certain cases. [8]
A detained person was liable to be detained in a place and under conditions specified by the government, including conditions on maintenance, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline, and could be moved between detention places in states with consent. [5]
If a person subject to a detention order absconded or was concealing himself, the government could report it to a magistrate and order the person to appear; failure could lead to imprisonment up to one year, a fine, or both. [4]
Where it stands today
The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 ceased to have effect on 31 December 1969. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 appears in the cited texts as a subsequent law with similar detention powers.
What was done
The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 allowed the Central Government or a State Government to order detention on its own satisfaction that it was necessary to prevent certain prejudicial acts. The Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951 kept existing detention orders in force under the amended Act. The 1950 Act ceased to have effect on 31 December 1969, and the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 then gave similar detention powers.
What it meant for the country
The cited Acts created and continued a power to detain people on the government's satisfaction alone, curtailing personal liberty.
The 1950 Act allowed the Central or State Government to order detention on its own satisfaction; it did not state that a conviction was needed before detention, so it was a statutory curtailment of personal liberty. [6]
MISA 1971 continued that power and allowed detention confirmed under section 12 for up to twelve months from the date of detention, or until expiry of the Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971, whichever was later. [9]
The detention power under the 1950 Act remained available until 31 December 1969, and a successor Act then restored similar powers in 1971. [3][7][9]
Step by step
1950 The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was made. It extended to the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir and was to cease on 31 December 1969. [3][7]
1951 The Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951 declared that detention orders in force at its commencement would continue as if made under the amended Act. [1]
1969-12-31 The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 ceased to have effect, saving things done or omitted before that date. [3][7]
1971 The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was made, giving the Central or State Government power to detain a person if satisfied it was necessary to prevent prejudicial acts. [9][10]
The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
Preventive detention means the government can hold a person without a trial to stop future harm. In 1950, Parliament passed the Preventive Detention Act, which let the central and state governments order such detention to protect defence, security, public order or essential supplies. The Supreme Court, the country's highest court, upheld the Act in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, except for one section, and the Act was set to end on 31 December 1969.
A law or decision by the government
Preventive detention law
1950
Harm to the nation
The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
Preventive detention means the government can hold a person without a trial to stop future harm. In 1950, Parliament passed the Preventive Detention Act, which let the central and state governments order such detention to protect defence, security, public order or essential supplies. The Supreme Court, the country's highest court, upheld the Act in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, except for one section, and the Act was set to end on 31 December 1969.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Preventive detention means the government can hold a person without a trial to stop future harm. In 1950, Parliament passed the Preventive Detention Act, which let the central and state governments order such detention to protect defence, security, public order or essential supplies. The Supreme Court, the country's highest court, upheld the Act in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, except for one section, and the Act was set to end on 31 December 1969.
Who did it
Preventive detention law
The evidence
Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 allowed the Central Government or a State Government to order detention of a person to prevent acts prejudicial to the defence of India, relations with foreign persons, security of India, security of the State, maintenance of public order, or maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. [5]
Section 3 also allowed District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates specially empowered, Commissioners of Police for Bombay, Calcutta, Madras or Hyderabad, and Collectors in former Hyderabad territories to exercise detention powers in certain cases. [5]
Section 11 required the government to revoke a detention order and release the person if the Advisory Board reported no sufficient cause; if the Board found sufficient cause, the government could confirm and continue detention. [3]
Section 14 allowed the government to release a detained person for a specified period with conditions, and made failure to surrender punishable with up to two years' imprisonment, fine, or both. [1]
Section 1 said the Act extended to the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir and would cease to have effect on 31 December 1969. [2]
Where it stands today
The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 ceased to have effect on 31 December 1969. The Supreme Court challenge in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras concluded with the Act upheld except Section 14. No pending proceedings are identified in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, giving the Central Government or a State Government power to order detention of a person to prevent acts prejudicial to defence, foreign relations, security, public order or essential supplies. The Supreme Court upheld the Act except Section 14, and the Act ceased to have effect on 31 December 1969.
What it meant for the country
The documents record that the Act allowed detention without trial and the Supreme Court upheld it, so personal liberty was curtailed.
The Act allowed the Central or State Government to detain a person without trial to prevent acts prejudicial to defence, foreign relations, security, public order or essential supplies. [5]
The Supreme Court held that Article 21 did not require a due process standard, so the Act's detention powers were upheld. [11][12]
A detainee's habeas corpus petition was dismissed, leaving the detention in place. [10]
The Act was to cease to have effect on 31 December 1969. [2]
Step by step
1949-05-18 The Constituent Assembly debated how preventive detention powers should be divided between the Centre and the Provinces. [8]
1949-09-15 The Constituent Assembly debated the preventive detention clause, including whether the High Courts and the Supreme Court could still hear challenges to detention and the maximum period of detention. [7]
1949-09-16 The Constituent Assembly debated the preventive detention clause, including the Advisory Board, the right to a legal practitioner, and the maximum period of detention. [6]
1950-02-27 An order of detention was passed under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, showing the Act was in force. [9]
1950-05 The Supreme Court decided A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, upholding the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 except Section 14 and holding that Article 21 required only a procedure established by law, not a due process standard. [9][10][11][12]
1950-05-19 The Supreme Court dismissed Ashutosh Lahiry's habeas corpus petition, relying on A.K. Gopalan. [10]
1969-12-31 The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 ceased to have effect. [2]
Before independence, India had many princely states ruled by local rulers. The Government of India persuaded these rulers to sign instruments of accession and merge their states into the Indian Union, and published the White Paper on Indian States as the record of this process. The Constitution of India, 1950, made India a Union of States, and the integration stands completed; the recognition and yearly payments to rulers were later ended by a constitutional amendment in 1971.
A law or decision by the government
Princely states and their integration into India
1950
Benefit to the nation
White Paper on Indian States, 1950
Before independence, India had many princely states ruled by local rulers. The Government of India persuaded these rulers to sign instruments of accession and merge their states into the Indian Union, and published the White Paper on Indian States as the record of this process. The Constitution of India, 1950, made India a Union of States, and the integration stands completed; the recognition and yearly payments to rulers were later ended by a constitutional amendment in 1971.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Before independence, India had many princely states ruled by local rulers. The Government of India persuaded these rulers to sign instruments of accession and merge their states into the Indian Union, and published the White Paper on Indian States as the record of this process. The Constitution of India, 1950, made India a Union of States, and the integration stands completed; the recognition and yearly payments to rulers were later ended by a constitutional amendment in 1971.
Who did it
Princely states and their integration into India
The evidence
The White Paper on Indian States recorded the strategy of the Government of India to persuade individual states to sign instruments of accession on defence, external affairs and communication [10]. [10]
The White Paper recorded that the Patiala and East Punjab States Union was inaugurated on 15 July 1948 [10]. [10]
Paragraph 157 of the White Paper recorded that private properties of rulers were settled by the Government of India in consultation with rulers and Rajpramukhs, and no case was referred to arbitration under Article XII of the covenant [10]. [10]
The Constitution of India, 1950, commenced on 26 January 1950 and made India a Union of States [5]. [5]
Article 291 of the Constitution guaranteed privy purse sums to rulers, charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and exempt from income tax; Article 362 provided for preservation of their rights and privileges [7]. [7]
Where it stands today
No proceedings are pending. The integration recorded in the White Paper was given constitutional form by the Constitution of India, 1950, which commenced on 26 January 1950 and remains in force [5]. The recognition of rulers and privy purses was ended by the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 [7].
What was done
The Government of India published the White Paper on Indian States, which recorded the strategy of persuading rulers to sign instruments of accession on defence, external affairs and communication, and the merger of states into unions such as PEPSU [10]. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India on 26 November 1949, and it commenced on 26 January 1950, making India a Union of States [5]. The Government of India settled private properties of rulers and guaranteed privy purses, later ended by the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 [7][10].
What it meant for the country
The documents record the consolidation of princely states into the Indian Union through the Constitution of India, 1950, and the extension of central laws to former princely territories.
The Constitution of India, 1950, made India a Union of States, bringing the territories of the former princely states into one constitutional structure [5]. [5]
The White Paper recorded that all rights, authority and jurisdiction of the erstwhile rulers were vested in the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, and all assets and liabilities of the covenanting states became the assets and liabilities of the Union [10]. [10]
The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 ended the recognition of rulers and the privy purse payments guaranteed under Articles 291 and 362 [7]. [7]
The Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950 extended central enactments to Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura, bringing them under the same laws as states [4]. [4]
Step by step
1947-08-09 The Maharaja of Mysore executed an Instrument of Accession; it was accepted by the Governor General of India on 16 August 1947, to take effect from 1 June 1949 [6][7]. [6][7]
1947-08-16 Rulers of all individual States were persuaded to enter into an instrument of accession dated 16 August 1947 with the Government of India, covering defence, external affairs and communication [10]. [10]
1948-05-05 Seven rulers, including the Maharaja of Kapurthala, executed a covenant merging their states into the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU); the Government of India concurred and guaranteed all its provisions, signed by V.P. Menon, Secretary in the Ministry of States [10]. [10]
1948-07-15 The Patiala and East Punjab States Union was inaugurated, as recorded in the White Paper on Indian States [10]. [10]
1949-01-01 The Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949 was made by the Government of Orissa for administration of Mayurbhanj State [11]. [11]
1950-01-23 The Government of India and the Maharaja of Mysore entered into an agreement on properties and privy purse [7]. [7]
1950-01-26 The Constitution of India commenced; India became a Union of States [5]. [5]
1950-04-16 The Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950 came into force, allowing the Central Government to extend enactments to Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura [4]. [4]
1951-01-08 The Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of States communicated acceptance of the inventory of the Maharaja of Mysore's private properties [7]. [7]
1971 The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act omitted Articles 291 and 362 and inserted Article 363-A, ending recognition of rulers and privy purse guarantees [7]. [7]
2004-09-09 The Supreme Court in Draupadi Devi v Union of India referred to the White Paper on Indian States and quoted paragraph 157 on settlement of rulers' private properties [10]. [10]
The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 allowed the government to apply laws from other provinces to Delhi, with changes. In 1951, the President asked the Supreme Court, using the Constitution's provision for advisory opinions, whether Parliament could delegate its law-making power to the executive and how far. On 23 May 1951, a two-judge Supreme Court bench answered that delegation is allowed, but the essential legislative function of deciding policy and making binding rules cannot be delegated. The reference ended with that opinion.
Closed without a verdict
Delegated legislation
1951
Benefit to the nation
In re Delhi Laws Act, 1951
The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 allowed the government to apply laws from other provinces to Delhi, with changes. In 1951, the President asked the Supreme Court, using the Constitution's provision for advisory opinions, whether Parliament could delegate its law-making power to the executive and how far. On 23 May 1951, a two-judge Supreme Court bench answered that delegation is allowed, but the essential legislative function of deciding policy and making binding rules cannot be delegated. The reference ended with that opinion.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 allowed the government to apply laws from other provinces to Delhi, with changes. In 1951, the President asked the Supreme Court, using the Constitution's provision for advisory opinions, whether Parliament could delegate its law-making power to the executive and how far. On 23 May 1951, a two-judge Supreme Court bench answered that delegation is allowed, but the essential legislative function of deciding policy and making binding rules cannot be delegated. The reference ended with that opinion.
Who did it
Delegated legislation
The evidence
Article 143(1) permits the President to refer questions of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. [3]
The President made the first Special Reference No. 1 of 1951 about the validity of provisions of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, and the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1951. [1]
The Supreme Court bench consisted of Chief Justice Harilal Kania and Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan. [11]
The Court delivered its opinion on 23 May 1951. [11]
Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 was titled "Power to extend enactments in force in other Provinces with modifications and restrictions" and was later repealed by the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950. [9]
Where it stands today
Concluded: Supreme Court advisory opinion delivered on 23 May 1951; no further proceedings are shown in the sources.
What was done
The President of India referred three questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143 about the validity of section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 and related extension-of-laws Acts. Chief Justice Harilal Kania and Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan delivered the advisory opinion on 23 May 1951. The Court upheld delegated legislation but held that the legislature cannot delegate its essential function of determining policy and making binding rules.
What it meant for the country
The opinion secured a constitutional limit on delegation: Parliament may allow the executive to make subordinate rules, but cannot hand over its essential job of setting policy and binding rules.
The opinion established that the essential legislative function — determining policy and formulating binding rules — cannot be delegated to any outside agency, preserving Parliament's law-making role. [10]
The Court upheld delegated legislation as within the powers of Indian legislatures, allowing the executive to make rules within the limits set by the legislature. [6]
Step by step
1912-09-18 The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 was enacted; section 7 allowed extension of enactments in force in other provinces with modifications and restrictions. [9]
1951 The President of India made a reference under Article 143(1) asking the Supreme Court about the validity of section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, and the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1951. [1][11]
1951-05-23 The Supreme Court delivered its advisory opinion in In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912, answering the three questions referred by the President. [11]
Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951 and retention of the Official Secrets Act, 1923
The Press (Objectionable Matter) Act of 1951 was a central law that let State governments confiscate any newspaper, book or document they certified as containing objectionable matter — writing that was indecent, obscene, scurrilous, intended for blackmail, or likely to stir hatred between communities. In the 1950s State governments in Madras, Bombay and Assam used this power to forfeit several books, and courts mostly upheld those orders while requiring the certificate of a proper law officer. The colonial-era Official Secrets Act of 1923, which punishes wrongful disclosure of secret official information, was also retained in force. Both statutes stood as Indian law.
A law or decision by the government
Official secrets and press restrictions
1951
Mixed
Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951 and retention of the Official Secrets Act, 1923
The Press (Objectionable Matter) Act of 1951 was a central law that let State governments confiscate any newspaper, book or document they certified as containing objectionable matter — writing that was indecent, obscene, scurrilous, intended for blackmail, or likely to stir hatred between communities. In the 1950s State governments in Madras, Bombay and Assam used this power to forfeit several books, and courts mostly upheld those orders while requiring the certificate of a proper law officer. The colonial-era Official Secrets Act of 1923, which punishes wrongful disclosure of secret official information, was also retained in force. Both statutes stood as Indian law.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Press (Objectionable Matter) Act of 1951 was a central law that let State governments confiscate any newspaper, book or document they certified as containing objectionable matter — writing that was indecent, obscene, scurrilous, intended for blackmail, or likely to stir hatred between communities. In the 1950s State governments in Madras, Bombay and Assam used this power to forfeit several books, and courts mostly upheld those orders while requiring the certificate of a proper law officer. The colonial-era Official Secrets Act of 1923, which punishes wrongful disclosure of secret official information, was also retained in force. Both statutes stood as Indian law.
Who did it
Official secrets and press restrictions
The evidence
Section 3 of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951 defines 'objectionable matter' to include any words, signs or visible representations which are grossly indecent or are scurrilous or obscene or intended for blackmail. [1]
Section 11 of the Act empowers the State Government, on the certificate of the Advocate General or the principal law officer of the State or of the Attorney General of India, to declare by notification in the Official Gazette that every copy of a newspaper, book or other document containing objectionable matter shall be forfeited to the Government. [1][3][4]
Section 24 of the Act enables any person aggrieved by an order of forfeiture under Section 11 to apply to the High Court within 60 days of the date of such order to set it aside. [1][4]
The Official Secrets Act, 1923 extends to the whole of India and applies also to servants of the Government and to citizens of India outside India. [9][12]
Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 punishes wrongful communication of secret official code, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information relating to a prohibited place or likely to assist an enemy. [11]
Where it stands today
The individual forfeiture and prosecution proceedings recorded in the sources concluded in the 1950s: the Madras, Bombay and Assam High Courts dismissed most challenges to forfeiture, while the Assam High Court set aside one order for want of a competent certificate and a jury reference was rejected. The Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951 and the Official Secrets Act, 1923 remained on the statute book.
What was done
The State governments of Madras, Bombay and Assam, acting under Section 11 of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951, forfeited books and a booklet that their law officers certified as containing objectionable matter. High Courts reviewed these orders under Section 24 of the Act and dismissed most challenges, while the Assam High Court set aside one forfeiture because the certificate had been given by the Legal Remembrancer, who was not competent to certify. The Official Secrets Act, 1923, remained in force in India.
What it meant for the country
The documents record press restrictions being enforced through forfeiture of books and upheld by courts in most cases, while some government actions were rejected for want of a competent certificate or because a jury found nothing objectionable.
The Government of Madras forfeited every copy of the Tamil book 'Kalavikkalai' under Section 11 of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, and the Madras High Court dismissed the publisher's petition to set aside the forfeiture. [1]
The Bombay State Government forfeited the book 'Dampatya Rahasya' as obscene, and the Bombay High Court declined to interfere, holding the government was right in forfeiting it. [8]
The Assam High Court held that the Legal Remembrancer was not competent to certify the booklet contained objectionable matter, so the forfeiture of 'Samaj Tantrabad Kiya Lagey' could not stand on that certificate. [4]
A jury unanimously found that publications in the Urdu daily 'Tazyana' did not contain objectionable matter, and the court rejected the government's reference under the Act. [6]
The Official Secrets Act, 1923 makes wrongful communication of any secret official code, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information relating to a prohibited place punishable, and extends to the whole of India and to servants of the Government. [11][12]
Step by step
1951 The Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951 is enacted as Central Act LVI of 1951 to provide against the printing and publication of incitement to crime and other objectionable matter. [1]
1952-11-07 Madras High Court in In Re: D. Pandurangan acquits the keeper of a press, holding that the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951 is no bar to prosecution for an offence under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. [5]
1953-08-15 The Bombay Government institutes proceedings under Section 4 of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act against the keeper of the Gujarat Printing Press, seeking security. [3]
1954-01-07 The Bombay State Government, on the Advocate General's certificate that a Gujarati book 'Dampatya Rahasya' contained obscene matter, passes an order of forfeiture of the book under Section 11 of the Act. [8]
1954-03-04 The Governor of Assam, under Section 11 of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, orders forfeiture of the booklet 'Samaj Tantrabad Kiya Lagey' written by Panna Lal Das Gupta and published by Gopal Das. [4]
1954-03-10 The Government of Madras, by Gazette notification under Section 11 of the Act, declares the Tamil book 'Kalavikkalai' printed at Rajan Electric Press and published by Shankar and Co. forfeit to the Government as containing objectionable matter under Section 3(vi). [1]
1954-06-15 The Assam High Court in Gopal Das v. State of Assam holds that the Legal Remembrancer was not competent to certify that the booklet contained objectionable matter, and that Section 11 of the Press Act imposes reasonable restrictions saved by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. [4]
1954-07-19 An article published in the weekly 'Hindu' on 19 July 1954 is held by the Bombay High Court in Durgaprasad Prasannakumar v. The State to fall within the mischief of Section 3(v) of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951. [2]
1955-10-07 The Bombay High Court delivers judgment in Durgaprasad Prasannakumar v. The State, holding that while freedom of the press is valuable, there are limits indicated in Section 3 of the Act. [2]
1955-10-24 In The State v. Sadat Jahan Razvi, a jury unanimously finds that the publications in the Urdu daily 'Tazyana' do not contain objectionable matter; the court rejects the reference and agrees the article expresses disapprobation and criticism of government policy with a view to obtain alteration or redress by lawful means. [6]
1958-03-19 The Supreme Court in Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India records the history of the Press Commission, noting it was appointed after debate in Parliament on the Press (Incitement to Crimes) Bill, later named the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act. [7]
India's main election law, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, sets the rules for elections to Parliament and state assemblies. Parliament later amended it in 1996, 2002, 2003 and 2004, adding paid poll-day leave for voters who are employees, election observers, limits on the number of constituencies a candidate can contest, voting machines, and postal or proxy voting for some voters. These provisions are in force.
A law or decision by the government
Electoral law
1951
Benefit to the nation
Representation of the People Act, 1951
India's main election law, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, sets the rules for elections to Parliament and state assemblies. Parliament later amended it in 1996, 2002, 2003 and 2004, adding paid poll-day leave for voters who are employees, election observers, limits on the number of constituencies a candidate can contest, voting machines, and postal or proxy voting for some voters. These provisions are in force.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
India's main election law, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, sets the rules for elections to Parliament and state assemblies. Parliament later amended it in 1996, 2002, 2003 and 2004, adding paid poll-day leave for voters who are employees, election observers, limits on the number of constituencies a candidate can contest, voting machines, and postal or proxy voting for some voters. These provisions are in force.
Who did it
Electoral law
The evidence
Section 135B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires a paid holiday for employees on the day of poll and provides a fine of up to five hundred rupees for an employer who contravenes it. [1]
The 1996 amendment inserted Section 20B, allowing the Election Commission to nominate observers to watch the conduct of elections in a constituency or group of constituencies. [8]
The 1996 amendment inserted Section 33(7), which prevents a person from being nominated from more than two constituencies in a general election, biennial election or simultaneous bye-election to Parliament or a state legislature, as specified. [8]
Section 61A of the 1951 Act provides that votes may be recorded by voting machines in the manner prescribed, in any constituency or constituencies the Election Commission specifies. [9]
The 2002 amendment inserted a new Section 33A after Section 33 of the 1951 Act, with effect from 24 August 2002. [11]
Where it stands today
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the amendments discussed are in force.
What was done
Parliament passed the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and then amended it several times. In 1996 it added a paid holiday on polling day, election observers, and a limit of two constituencies for a candidate; in 2002 it inserted a new Section 33A; in 2003 it allowed postal or proxy voting for specified groups, including people in preventive detention; and in 2004 it made further changes to the 1950 and 1951 election laws. Section 61A also gives the Election Commission the power to use voting machines in specified constituencies.
What it meant for the country
The law and its amendments expanded access to voting and strengthened election procedures, including a paid holiday on polling day, the use of voting machines, and postal or proxy voting for specified voters.
Every person employed in any business, trade, industrial undertaking or other establishment who is entitled to vote must be granted a holiday on polling day; if the person would not ordinarily receive wages for that day, they must still be paid the wages they would have drawn. An employer who violates this can be fined up to five hundred rupees. [1]
The Election Commission may adopt voting machines to record votes in a constituency or constituencies, taking account of the circumstances of each case. [9]
The 2003 amendment enabled specified classes of voters, including some service voters, their wives, notified classes, and persons subjected to preventive detention, to vote by postal ballot or proxy rather than only in person. [10]
Step by step
1951 The Representation of the People Act, 1951, is referred to as Act 43 of 1951 in the 1996 amendment to that Act. [8]
1996 Parliament passed the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1996. It inserted Section 20B on election observers, changed Section 30 to shorten the election timetable, added Section 33(7) limiting a candidate to two constituencies in specified elections, changed penalties in the 1950 Act, and inserted Section 135B on a paid holiday on polling day. [8]
2002-08-24 The Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002 came into force, inserting a new Section 33A after Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. [11]
2003 The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 amended Section 59 of the 1951 Act so that proxy voting is received only where the Act expressly provides. It also introduced special procedures for voting by postal ballot or proxy for specified classes, including persons in preventive detention, and added a proviso to Section 171D of the Indian Penal Code for authorised proxies. [10]
2004-01-01 The Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Act, 2003, numbered Act 2 of 2004 and dated 1 January 2004, further amended the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. [12]
In the old Madras Presidency, seats in State-run medical and engineering colleges were shared out by a communal Government Order of 1927 on religion and caste lines — so many seats for non-Brahmin Hindus, Brahmins, Harijans, Muslims, Christians and others. A Brahmin student, Champakam Dorairajan, who was refused a medical college seat, challenged the order. The Madras High Court and then the Supreme Court held the caste-and-religion sharing of seats invalid, because the Constitution says no citizen may be denied admission to a State-run or State-aided educational institution on grounds only of religion, race, caste or language. Parliament answered by passing the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, adding Article 15(4), which allows the State to make special provision for socially and educationally backward classes and for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
A law or decision by the government
Caste-based reservations in education
1951
Mixed
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951
In the old Madras Presidency, seats in State-run medical and engineering colleges were shared out by a communal Government Order of 1927 on religion and caste lines — so many seats for non-Brahmin Hindus, Brahmins, Harijans, Muslims, Christians and others. A Brahmin student, Champakam Dorairajan, who was refused a medical college seat, challenged the order. The Madras High Court and then the Supreme Court held the caste-and-religion sharing of seats invalid, because the Constitution says no citizen may be denied admission to a State-run or State-aided educational institution on grounds only of religion, race, caste or language. Parliament answered by passing the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, adding Article 15(4), which allows the State to make special provision for socially and educationally backward classes and for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In the old Madras Presidency, seats in State-run medical and engineering colleges were shared out by a communal Government Order of 1927 on religion and caste lines — so many seats for non-Brahmin Hindus, Brahmins, Harijans, Muslims, Christians and others. A Brahmin student, Champakam Dorairajan, who was refused a medical college seat, challenged the order. The Madras High Court and then the Supreme Court held the caste-and-religion sharing of seats invalid, because the Constitution says no citizen may be denied admission to a State-run or State-aided educational institution on grounds only of religion, race, caste or language. Parliament answered by passing the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, adding Article 15(4), which allows the State to make special provision for socially and educationally backward classes and for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
Who did it
Caste-based reservations in education
The evidence
The communal Government Order was passed in 1927 in the Madras Presidency and divided seats in government medical and engineering colleges on religious and caste lines. [11][12]
In the Madras High Court proceedings, of the 330 seats in the four Government Medical Colleges, 17 were reserved for students from outside the State and 12 for discretionary allotment by the Government in consultation with the Surgeon-General; of the remaining 14 seats, 6 went to non-Brahmin Hindus, 2 to backward Hindu communities, 2 to Brahmins, 2 to Harijans, 1 to Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians, and 1 to Muslims. [1]
The High Court held the communal G.O. contrary to Article 15(1), which says the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, and to Article 29(2), which says no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. [1]
Article 15(4), inserted by section 2 of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, reads: "Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes." [3][4][6]
Where it stands today
The Supreme Court appeals concluded on 9 April 1951, upholding the Madras High Court's cancellation of the communal G.O. Article 15(4), inserted by the First Amendment, remains part of the Constitution. The sources show no pending proceedings.
What was done
The Madras Government ran a communal Government Order from 1927 that divided seats in its medical and engineering colleges on religion and caste. The Madras High Court on 27 July 1950, and the Supreme Court on 9 April 1951, held that order invalid as a denial of admission on grounds only of religion and caste contrary to Articles 15(1) and 29(2) of the Constitution. Parliament then passed the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, adding Article 15(4) to permit special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
What it meant for the country
The judgment secured the individual right not to be denied admission on grounds of caste or religion, while Parliament's constitutional amendment then re-opened the legal space for reservations in education for backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
The Madras High Court and the Supreme Court held that the communal G.O. denied admission on grounds only of religion and caste, so the order could not be applied against Champakam Dorairajan and others when they sought seats in State medical and engineering colleges. [1][10]
Parliament's Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 inserted Article 15(4), allowing the State to make special provision for socially and educationally backward classes and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which became the constitutional basis for reservations in education. [4][6][3]
Step by step
1927 The Madras Presidency issued the communal Government Order (G.O.) dividing seats in government medical and engineering colleges on religious and caste lines. [11][12]
1950-07-27 The Madras High Court held the communal Government Order inconsistent with Article 15(1), which forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and with Article 29(2), which says no citizen shall be denied admission into a State-maintained or State-aided educational institution on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them; the Court struck the order down. [1][10]
1951-04-09 The Supreme Court of India dismissed the State of Madras's appeals in State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan and State of Madras v. C.R. Srinivasan, upholding the Madras High Court's decision. The judgment is reported as AIR 1951 SC 226; 1951 SCR 525. [9][10][11]
1951-05-10 The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was published in the Gazette of India. Section 2 of the Act added clause (4) to Article 15 of the Constitution: "Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes." [4]
1951-06-18 The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 commenced. [4]
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951: free speech restrictions and the Ninth Schedule
India's Constitution gave citizens a right to freedom of speech and expression. In 1951 Parliament passed the first amendment to the Constitution, which allowed laws to restrict that right on grounds such as public order, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, decency or morality, and contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The same amendment added a list called the Ninth Schedule and said laws in that list could not be cancelled by courts for violating fundamental rights. The amendment remains in force, but in 2007 the Supreme Court held that even Ninth Schedule laws can be reviewed if they violate the Constitution's basic structure.
A law or decision by the government
Constitutional limits on free speech and property
1951
Mixed
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951: free speech restrictions and the Ninth Schedule
India's Constitution gave citizens a right to freedom of speech and expression. In 1951 Parliament passed the first amendment to the Constitution, which allowed laws to restrict that right on grounds such as public order, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, decency or morality, and contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The same amendment added a list called the Ninth Schedule and said laws in that list could not be cancelled by courts for violating fundamental rights. The amendment remains in force, but in 2007 the Supreme Court held that even Ninth Schedule laws can be reviewed if they violate the Constitution's basic structure.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
India's Constitution gave citizens a right to freedom of speech and expression. In 1951 Parliament passed the first amendment to the Constitution, which allowed laws to restrict that right on grounds such as public order, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, decency or morality, and contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The same amendment added a list called the Ninth Schedule and said laws in that list could not be cancelled by courts for violating fundamental rights. The amendment remains in force, but in 2007 the Supreme Court held that even Ninth Schedule laws can be reviewed if they violate the Constitution's basic structure.
Who did it
Constitutional limits on free speech and property
The evidence
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was published in the Gazette of India on 10 May 1951 and commenced on 18 June 1951. [1]
The Act's new Article 19(2) allowed restrictions on free speech in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. [1]
Article 31B says none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule shall be deemed void on the ground of inconsistency with fundamental rights, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court. [5]
The Act also amended Article 15 to allow the State to make special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. [1]
Where it stands today
The First Amendment Act remains in force. The Ninth Schedule shield is limited by the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in I R Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu. No pending proceedings are identified in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. It changed Article 19(2) to permit laws restricting free speech on the listed grounds, and it inserted Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule so that laws listed there would continue in force even if inconsistent with fundamental rights.
What it meant for the country
The amendment narrowed free speech and shielded listed laws from fundamental-rights challenges, but the Supreme Court later held that even Ninth Schedule laws can be reviewed if they violate the basic structure.
The amendment replaced Article 19(2) so that laws could impose restrictions on free speech in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. [1]
Article 31B provided that laws in the Ninth Schedule would not be deemed void for breaching fundamental rights, notwithstanding any court order, shielding them from judicial review. [5][16]
In 2007, the Supreme Court held that all Ninth Schedule laws are open to judicial review if they violate the basic structure, and laws added after 24 April 1973 can be challenged if they violate Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21. [5]
Step by step
1950-03 As reported by Indian Kanoon's editorial note, the Supreme Court decided Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi; the note states that initial attempts to censor the press were ruled unconstitutional. [8]
1950-05 As reported by Indian Kanoon's editorial note, the Supreme Court decided Romesh Thappar v State of Madras; the note states that initial attempts to censor the press were ruled unconstitutional. [8]
1951-05-10 The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was published in the Gazette of India. [1]
1951-06-18 The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 commenced. [1]
1951-06-18 The Act substituted Article 19(2) to allow restrictions on free speech in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence; the clause was deemed always to have been enacted in that form. [1]
1951-06-18 The Act inserted Article 31B, providing that laws in the Ninth Schedule shall not be deemed void for breaching fundamental rights, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court. [1][16]
1951-06-18 The Act added the Ninth Schedule after the Eighth Schedule. [1][2]
2007 As reported by Indian Kanoon's editorial note, the Supreme Court in I R Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu held that all Ninth Schedule laws are open to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution, and that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be challenged if they violate Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21. [5]
The First Amendment, 1951: limits on free speech and the Ninth Schedule
India's Constitution, which came into force on 26 January 1950, gave every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, while allowing the State to impose 'reasonable restrictions' for certain listed reasons. In March and May 1950 the Supreme Court held that two government moves to censor the press did not fit those reasons and were therefore unconstitutional. In response, the Congress government in the Provisional Parliament enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951: it replaced Article 19(2), adding 'the sovereignty and integrity of India' to the grounds on which speech could be restricted, and inserted Articles 31A and 31B dealing with land reform laws. On 5 October 1951 the Supreme Court, in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India, upheld the amendment and the Provisional Parliament's power to make it, and the amended text remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Nehru government; the Provisional Parliament
1951
Harm to the nation
The First Amendment, 1951: limits on free speech and the Ninth Schedule
India's Constitution, which came into force on 26 January 1950, gave every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, while allowing the State to impose 'reasonable restrictions' for certain listed reasons. In March and May 1950 the Supreme Court held that two government moves to censor the press did not fit those reasons and were therefore unconstitutional. In response, the Congress government in the Provisional Parliament enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951: it replaced Article 19(2), adding 'the sovereignty and integrity of India' to the grounds on which speech could be restricted, and inserted Articles 31A and 31B dealing with land reform laws. On 5 October 1951 the Supreme Court, in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India, upheld the amendment and the Provisional Parliament's power to make it, and the amended text remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
India's Constitution, which came into force on 26 January 1950, gave every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, while allowing the State to impose 'reasonable restrictions' for certain listed reasons. In March and May 1950 the Supreme Court held that two government moves to censor the press did not fit those reasons and were therefore unconstitutional. In response, the Congress government in the Provisional Parliament enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951: it replaced Article 19(2), adding 'the sovereignty and integrity of India' to the grounds on which speech could be restricted, and inserted Articles 31A and 31B dealing with land reform laws. On 5 October 1951 the Supreme Court, in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India, upheld the amendment and the Provisional Parliament's power to make it, and the amended text remains in force.
Who did it
Nehru government; the Provisional Parliament
The evidence
The Constitution of India came into force on 26 January 1950, guaranteeing citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). [3][4]
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 substituted Article 19(2), adding 'the sovereignty and integrity of India' to the grounds for restricting freedom of speech, with retrospective effect. [2]
The Supreme Court, in a judgment by Patanjali Sastri J, upheld the First Amendment on 5 October 1951, holding the Provisional Parliament competent to amend the Constitution. [6]
Article 19(2) now permits restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in the interests of 'the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence'. [1]
Where it stands today
The challenge to the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 concluded with the Supreme Court's judgment of 5 October 1951 in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India, which upheld the Act. The amendment remains in force.
What was done
The Congress government, in the Provisional Parliament, enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. Section 3 of the Act substituted Article 19(2) of the Constitution, adding 'the sovereignty and integrity of India' to the grounds on which the State may restrict freedom of speech and expression, with retrospective effect; the Act also inserted Articles 31A and 31B.
What it meant for the country
The documents record that after the Supreme Court held two press censorship actions unconstitutional in 1950, the Constitution was amended in 1951 to widen the grounds for restricting freedom of speech, narrowing a fundamental right, and the Supreme Court upheld the amendment.
The Supreme Court held that attempts to censor the press were unconstitutional, in Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi (March 1950) and Romesh Thappar v State of Madras (May 1950), as reported by Indian Kanoon's editorial note on Article 19(1)(a). [5]
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 substituted Article 19(2), adding 'the sovereignty and integrity of India' to the grounds permitting restrictions on freedom of speech, with retrospective effect, thereby narrowing the protection given to free expression. [2]
The Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment on 5 October 1951, confirming the Provisional Parliament's competence to amend the Constitution and the validity of Articles 31A and 31B. [6]
Step by step
1950-01-26 The Constitution of India came into force, with Article 19(1)(a) guaranteeing citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression and Article 19(2) listing the grounds for reasonable restrictions on that right. [3][4]
1950-03 Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi: the Supreme Court held an initial attempt to censor the press unconstitutional, as reported in an Indian Kanoon editorial note on Article 19(1)(a). [5]
1950-05 Romesh Thappar v State of Madras: the Supreme Court again held an attempt to censor the press unconstitutional, as reported in the same editorial note. [5]
1951 Parliament enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951; the Act's short title is recorded in Section 1. [7]
1951 By Section 3 of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, Article 19(2) was substituted, adding 'the sovereignty and integrity of India' to the grounds on which freedom of speech and expression may be restricted, with retrospective effect. [2]
1951-10-05 Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India: the Supreme Court, in a judgment by Patanjali Sastri J, upheld the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, holding the Provisional Parliament competent to exercise the power of amending the Constitution and holding that Articles 31A and 31B do not curtail the powers of the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 132 and 136. [6]
The Licence Raj: you needed a government permit to open or grow a factory, 1951–1991
For about 40 years, a company in India could not start a factory, or make an existing one bigger, without a licence from the government. Some industries were kept for the government alone. Big companies and foreign companies faced extra limits. In 1991, when India had almost run out of foreign money to pay for imports, the government ended licensing for all but 18 industries.
A law or decision by the government
Governments of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi; ended by the P.V. Narasimha Rao government in 1991
1951
Harm to the nation
The Licence Raj: you needed a government permit to open or grow a factory, 1951–1991
For about 40 years, a company in India could not start a factory, or make an existing one bigger, without a licence from the government. Some industries were kept for the government alone. Big companies and foreign companies faced extra limits. In 1991, when India had almost run out of foreign money to pay for imports, the government ended licensing for all but 18 industries.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
For about 40 years, a company in India could not start a factory, or make an existing one bigger, without a licence from the government. Some industries were kept for the government alone. Big companies and foreign companies faced extra limits. In 1991, when India had almost run out of foreign money to pay for imports, the government ended licensing for all but 18 industries.
Who did it
Congress governments under Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi built the system. Rajiv Gandhi's Congress government loosened parts of it in the 1980s. P.V. Narasimha Rao's Congress government, with Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister, ended most of it in July 1991.
The evidence
The government's own inquiry (the Dutt Committee, 1969) studied nearly 10,000 licences given and 7,500 applications refused between 1956 and 1966. It recorded that large business groups got approvals more often than others, and quoted an earlier commission that licensing “has restricted the freedom of entry into industry and so helped to produce concentration”. [1]
The government's Statement on Industrial Policy of 24 July 1991 says: “Industrial licensing will be abolished for all projects except for a short list of industries.” The list has 18 industries. [2]
In his Budget speech the same day, Finance Minister Manmohan Singh told Parliament that foreign exchange reserves of about ₹2,500 crore “would suffice to finance imports for a mere fortnight”, and that barriers to entry and limits on the size of firms had led to more licensing and more monopoly. [3]
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (section 29) required Reserve Bank permission for companies that were more than 40% foreign-owned. [7]
World Bank figures show India's economy grew about 3.6% a year on average in 1961–1980, about 5.6% in 1981–1990, and about 6.4% a year in 1992–2010. [5]
Where it stands today
This was government policy, not a court case. Licensing was ended for all but 18 industries in July 1991, and the FERA 40% rule was removed in 1993.
What was done
A 1951 law made a government licence compulsory for new factories and large expansions in listed industries. A 1956 policy kept some industries for the state. Later laws added controls on large companies (the MRTP Act, 1969) and on foreign ownership (FERA, 1973, which set a 40% limit unless the Reserve Bank allowed more).
What it meant for the country
The government's own inquiry found licensing did not meet its aims, growth was slower in those decades than after, and in 1991 the government itself removed most of the controls. The documents do not prove that licensing alone caused the slow growth.
Growth was slower in the licensing decades than after: about 3.6% a year in 1961–1980 against about 6.4% a year in 1992–2010 (World Bank). Growth had already picked up to about 5.6% in the 1980s, when the easing began. [5][4]
The Dutt Committee's record showed larger business groups got licences more often than others. The system's own aim, to stop economic power gathering in a few hands, was not met. [1]
As described by the Observer Research Foundation, 881 companies asked to keep more than 40% foreign ownership under FERA and 150 were allowed. IBM and Coca-Cola were among those that left India. [11]
By July 1991 India had foreign exchange for about two weeks of imports, as the Finance Minister told Parliament, and gold was pledged abroad to raise money. [3][10]
Step by step
1951 The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act is passed. A licence is now needed for new factories and large expansions in listed industries. [4]
1956-04-30 The Industrial Policy Resolution puts industries in three groups: only for the state, led by the state, and left to private business. [6]
1969 The Dutt Committee reports on how licensing worked from 1956 to 1966. [1]
1969-12-18 The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act is enacted. Large companies now need extra permission to expand. [8]
1973-09-19 The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) is enacted. [7]
1973 As reported by Business Standard, the top income-tax rate reaches 97.75% in 1973–74. It is cut to 75% the next year. [9]
1985 Easing begins in the second half of the 1980s. By 1990 about 31 industries no longer need a licence. [4]
1991-07-04 As reported by ThePrint from the memoir of former Reserve Bank Governor C. Rangarajan, the Reserve Bank begins sending 46.91 tonnes of gold abroad as security for loans. [10]
1991-07-24 The Statement on Industrial Policy ends licensing for all but 18 industries. The Budget is presented the same day. [2][3]
Governments of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi; ended by the P.V. Narasimha Rao government in 1991
1952
Benefit to the nation
Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952
The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 created a compulsory provident fund for workers in factories and other establishments with 20 or more employees. Parliament enacted the law, and the Central Government framed three schemes under it: the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme in 1952, the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme in 1976, and the Employees' Pension Scheme in 1995. The law and the schemes remain in force, requiring employers and the Government to contribute towards workers' retirement savings, pensions and insurance.
A law or decision by the government
Provident fund for workers
1952
Benefit to the nation
Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952
The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 created a compulsory provident fund for workers in factories and other establishments with 20 or more employees. Parliament enacted the law, and the Central Government framed three schemes under it: the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme in 1952, the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme in 1976, and the Employees' Pension Scheme in 1995. The law and the schemes remain in force, requiring employers and the Government to contribute towards workers' retirement savings, pensions and insurance.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 created a compulsory provident fund for workers in factories and other establishments with 20 or more employees. Parliament enacted the law, and the Central Government framed three schemes under it: the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme in 1952, the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme in 1976, and the Employees' Pension Scheme in 1995. The law and the schemes remain in force, requiring employers and the Government to contribute towards workers' retirement savings, pensions and insurance.
Who did it
Provident fund for workers
The evidence
The Act applies to every factory engaged in an industry specified in Schedule I with 20 or more persons employed, and to other establishments with 20 or more persons or classes of establishments specified by the Central Government; the Government may also apply the Act to establishments with fewer than 20 persons. [10]
The Act provides for three schemes: the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, and the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976. [1]
An employee receiving pay up to Rs 6,500 per month is eligible for membership of the Provident Fund from the date of joining an establishment. [1]
The Pension Scheme is funded by diverting 8.33% of wages out of the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund, and the Central Government contributes at the rate of 1-1/6% of wages. [1]
The Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme is supported by an employer contribution of 0.5% of the employee's pay. [1]
Where it stands today
The Act and the three schemes remain in force, with the Fund vested in and administered by the Central Board and the Central Provident Fund Commissioner acting as its chief executive. No pending legal challenge is recorded in the documents.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Central Government framed the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 with effect from 2 September 1952, the Employees' Family Pension Scheme with effect from 1 March 1971, the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 with effect from 1 August 1976, and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 with effect from 16 November 1995. The 1996 Amendment Act gave legal basis to the pension scheme and renamed the family pension fund as the pension fund.
What it meant for the country
The record shows workers gained a statutory retirement-savings, pension and insurance safety net.
Covered workers and their families gained compulsory retirement savings, old-age and survivor pensions, and deposit-linked life insurance. [1]
The Act forbids employers from reducing employee wages or other old-age benefits merely because the employer must pay contributions. [6]
The deposit-linked insurance scheme initially provided a maximum death benefit of Rs 10,000, plus an amount equal to the average provident fund balance of the preceding 12 months. [1]
Step by step
1952-09-02 The Central Government framed the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952; it commenced on 2 September 1952 and applied to specified factories from that date. [3]
1971-03-01 The Employees' Family Pension Scheme came into force, providing a monthly family pension to the families of employees who died in service. [1]
1976-08-01 The Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 came into force, funded by an employer contribution of 0.5% of the employee's pay. [1]
1995-11-16 The Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 came into force, and the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1996 was deemed to have come into force on this date; the family pension scheme ceased to operate and its assets were transferred to the new Pension Fund. [1][4]
Air India nationalisation, 1953: compensation and later costs
In 1953, India's Parliament passed a law that took over private airline companies, including Air India, and placed them into two government-owned corporations. The law set out a payment scheme: owners would receive part in cash and part in government-guaranteed bonds paying 3.5 per cent interest, with a tribunal to settle disputes about the amount. In 1994, Parliament replaced the two corporations with companies, Indian Airlines Limited and Air India Limited, and ended the 1953 law.
A law or decision by the government
Air India and other airlines nationalisation
1953
Air India nationalisation, 1953: compensation and later costs
In 1953, India's Parliament passed a law that took over private airline companies, including Air India, and placed them into two government-owned corporations. The law set out a payment scheme: owners would receive part in cash and part in government-guaranteed bonds paying 3.5 per cent interest, with a tribunal to settle disputes about the amount. In 1994, Parliament replaced the two corporations with companies, Indian Airlines Limited and Air India Limited, and ended the 1953 law.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1953, India's Parliament passed a law that took over private airline companies, including Air India, and placed them into two government-owned corporations. The law set out a payment scheme: owners would receive part in cash and part in government-guaranteed bonds paying 3.5 per cent interest, with a tribunal to settle disputes about the amount. In 1994, Parliament replaced the two corporations with companies, Indian Airlines Limited and Air India Limited, and ended the 1953 law.
Who did it
Air India and other airlines nationalisation
The evidence
The Air Corporations Act, 1953 vested the undertakings of existing air companies in Indian Airlines or Air India International, and required compensation to be given to those companies. [1]
Compensation was to be paid partly in cash and partly in negotiable bonds. The cash portion was the greatest of 10 per cent of the compensation, the amount of bank borrowings outstanding on 31 December 1952 or on the appointed date (whichever was less), or the amount of cash of the company that vested in the Corporation. [13]
The bonds were to be redeemed at face value on demand within 180 days after five years from the date of issue, carried interest at 3.5 per cent per annum, and their redemption and interest were guaranteed by the Central Government. [13]
If an existing air company did not accept the compensation amount determined by the Corporation and approved by the Central Government, it could refer the matter to a Tribunal constituted by the Central Government. [1]
The Tribunal was to consist of three members appointed by the Central Government, one of whom was to be or have been a High Court judge or a Supreme Court judge. Its decision on matters within its jurisdiction was final and could not be questioned in any court. [4]
Where it stands today
The sources record no pending proceedings. The Air Corporations Act, 1953 was repealed in 1994 and the corporations ceased to exist.
What was done
The Government of India enacted the Air Corporations Act, 1953, which compulsorily acquired the undertakings of existing air companies and provided for compensation. Parliament then enacted the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994, transferring the undertakings to companies and repealing the 1953 Act.
What it meant for the country
The documents show that private airline owners were compulsorily acquired with a statutory right to compensation and a tribunal, but they record no amounts paid, losses, or later sale proceeds, so the overall effect cannot be assessed.
The 1953 Act authorised the compulsory acquisition of private airline undertakings, while giving the owners a statutory right to compensation and to challenge the amount before a tribunal. [1][4]
Step by step
1953 The Air Corporations Act, 1953 provided that the undertakings of existing air companies vested in Indian Airlines or Air India International, and that compensation would be given to those companies. [1]
1994-03-21 The Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 received the President's assent. It transferred the undertakings of Indian Airlines and Air-India to Indian Airlines Limited and Air India Limited, repealed the Air Corporations Act, 1953, and provided that the two corporations would cease to exist. [17]
Air India: taken over by the government in 1953, sold back to Tata in 2022
J.R.D. Tata started India's first airline in 1932. In 1953 Parliament passed a law that moved Air India and eight other private airlines into two government-owned corporations. The airline was well regarded for many years. After a merger and a large aircraft purchase in 2005–07 it made heavy losses, and the government sold it back to the Tata group in 2022.
A law or decision by the government
Jawaharlal Nehru government; J.R.D. Tata
1953
Mixed
Air India: taken over by the government in 1953, sold back to Tata in 2022
J.R.D. Tata started India's first airline in 1932. In 1953 Parliament passed a law that moved Air India and eight other private airlines into two government-owned corporations. The airline was well regarded for many years. After a merger and a large aircraft purchase in 2005–07 it made heavy losses, and the government sold it back to the Tata group in 2022.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
J.R.D. Tata started India's first airline in 1932. In 1953 Parliament passed a law that moved Air India and eight other private airlines into two government-owned corporations. The airline was well regarded for many years. After a merger and a large aircraft purchase in 2005–07 it made heavy losses, and the government sold it back to the Tata group in 2022.
Who did it
The Congress government of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru passed the law in 1953. Later decisions were taken by the Janata government of Morarji Desai (removing J.R.D. Tata as chairman, 1978), the Congress-led UPA government (the 2007 merger and aircraft order) and the BJP-led NDA government (the 2021–22 sale).
The evidence
The Air Corporations Act, 1953 (signed into law on 28 May 1953) created the two corporations and listed the nine airline companies to be taken over. Compensation was to be at least 10% in cash and the rest in five-year bonds at 3.5% interest. [1]
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the government's auditor, No. 18 of 2011 says the two airlines began large aircraft purchases in 2005 and were merged in August 2007, and that the merged company's money problems kept growing. [5]
As reported by Business Today, the CAG called the purchase of 111 aircraft on borrowed money “a recipe for disaster” and the merger “ill-timed”. [6]
The government's press release of 8 October 2021 says Talace Pvt Ltd, a Tata Sons company, won with a bid of ₹18,000 crore. The government's minimum price was ₹12,906 crore. [9]
The government's press release of 27 January 2022 says the sale was completed that day: ₹2,700 crore paid in cash and ₹15,300 crore of Air India's debt taken on by the buyer. [12]
Where it stands today
This was government policy, not a court case. Air India has been owned by the Tata group since 27 January 2022. The debt left behind was moved to a government company, Air India Assets Holding Ltd.
What was done
The Air Corporations Act, 1953 set up two government corporations, Indian Airlines and Air-India International, and transferred the business of nine airline companies to them. The owners were paid compensation, partly in cash and partly in government bonds.
What it meant for the country
The record shows an airline that was well regarded in its early decades under government ownership, and then heavy losses after 2007 that cost the public tens of thousands of crores of rupees.
In its early decades Air India was well regarded; a published company history says it was once seen as a “little jewel” of an airline, and that it made a loss in three of the years between 1976 and 1985. [14]
As reported by Business Standard, the government told the Rajya Sabha on 4 August 2021 that Air India had made heavy losses since the 2007 merger, and that total losses stood at about ₹70,820 crore on 31 March 2020. [8]
As reported by Business Standard, the government told the Lok Sabha on 5 December 2019 that it had put ₹30,520 crore of public money into Air India from 2011–12. [7]
As reported by Business Standard, Air India's debt was ₹61,562 crore on 31 August 2021. [10]
As reported by Business Today, the Civil Aviation Minister told the Lok Sabha on 24 March 2022 that Air India was losing ₹20 crore a day, and that before 2005 both airlines had been making small profits. [13]
Step by step
1932-10 J.R.D. Tata flies the first flight of what became Tata Airlines, from Karachi to Bombay. [2]
1948 Air-India International is started. The government holds 49%, Tatas 25% and the public the rest. [2]
1953-05-28 The Air Corporations Act becomes law. Nine airline companies are moved into two government corporations. J.R.D. Tata stays on as chairman of Air India. [1][2]
1978-02 As reported by Scroll from a book on the Tata group, Prime Minister Morarji Desai removes J.R.D. Tata as chairman of Air India. [3]
1994 Parliament repeals the 1953 Act. The two corporations become companies, and private airlines are allowed again. [4]
2007-08 Air India and Indian Airlines are merged into one company. [5]
2011-09-08 As reported by Business Today, the CAG report on civil aviation is placed before Parliament. [6]
2021-10-08 The government announces that Tata's Talace has won the bid for Air India at ₹18,000 crore. [9]
2022-01-27 Air India is handed over to Tata. The government keeps no shares. [12][15]
Andhra State Act, 1953 and the Potti Sriramulu fast
In the early 1950s the Telugu-speaking districts of Madras were given a state of their own. Parliament passed the Andhra State Act, 1953, which created the State of Andhra from eleven Madras districts plus three taluks of Bellary district, with effect from 1 October 1953. Three years later the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 merged the Telangana area of Hyderabad into Andhra and formed the larger State of Andhra Pradesh, which is the position that stands today.
A law or decision by the government
Creation of Andhra State and linguistic reorganisation
1953
Benefit to the nation
Andhra State Act, 1953 and the Potti Sriramulu fast
In the early 1950s the Telugu-speaking districts of Madras were given a state of their own. Parliament passed the Andhra State Act, 1953, which created the State of Andhra from eleven Madras districts plus three taluks of Bellary district, with effect from 1 October 1953. Three years later the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 merged the Telangana area of Hyderabad into Andhra and formed the larger State of Andhra Pradesh, which is the position that stands today.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In the early 1950s the Telugu-speaking districts of Madras were given a state of their own. Parliament passed the Andhra State Act, 1953, which created the State of Andhra from eleven Madras districts plus three taluks of Bellary district, with effect from 1 October 1953. Three years later the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 merged the Telangana area of Hyderabad into Andhra and formed the larger State of Andhra Pradesh, which is the position that stands today.
Who did it
Creation of Andhra State and linguistic reorganisation
The evidence
The Andhra State Act, 1953 formed a Part A State called Andhra comprising Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Nellore, Kurnool, Anantapur, Cuddapah and Chittoor districts and the Alur, Adoni and Rayadrug taluks of Bellary district (the source text spells it 'Bekllary') in the State of Madras. [1][2]
The appointed day under the Andhra State Act was 1 October 1953. [3][5]
The Act reduced the Lok Sabha seats of Madras from 75 to 46, allotted 28 seats to Andhra, and increased Mysore's seats to 12. [1]
The Act reduced the assembly seats of Madras to 230, allotted 140 seats to Andhra, and gave Mysore 104 seats. [1]
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 appointed 1 November 1956 as its appointed day and listed Andhra Pradesh as comprising the territories specified in the Andhra State Act, 1953 and the territories specified in the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. [18][19]
Where it stands today
No court proceedings about the Andhra State Act, 1953 or the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 are recorded in these sources. The legislative process concluded with the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and the current position is the State of Andhra Pradesh as formed under that Act.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Andhra State Act, 1953, which formed the new Part A State of Andhra and amended the Constitution's First Schedule. Parliament later enacted the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which replaced the separate Andhra State by merging the Telangana area into it and creating Andhra Pradesh. The government also constituted the States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953 to examine reorganisation of states.
What it meant for the country
The record shows that Telugu-speaking areas gained their own state and dedicated parliamentary representation, and the reorganisation was later expanded into Andhra Pradesh; the cited sources record no loss or harm.
Parliamentary representation shifted: the Lok Sabha seats of Madras were reduced from 75 to 46, Andhra was allotted 28 seats, and Mysore's seats were increased to 12, as stated in the Act; in the assemblies, Andhra was allotted 140, Madras 230 and Mysore 104. [1]
The Constitution's First Schedule was amended to add Andhra as the first Part A State and to alter the descriptions of the territories of Madras and Mysore. [1]
On 1 November 1956 the States Reorganisation Act replaced the 1953 boundary by merging the Telangana area of Hyderabad with Andhra and creating the State of Andhra Pradesh, ending the separate State of Andhra. [18][19]
The 1956 Act removed the legal categories of Part A, Part B and Part C States and created the categories of States and Union territories, and also set up advisory Zonal Councils to discuss matters of common interest, including border disputes and linguistic minorities. [18][19]
Step by step
1953-10-01 The Andhra State Act, 1953 came into force for its substantive provisions and the new Part A State of Andhra was formed from the territories of Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Nellore, Kurnool, Anantapur, Cuddapah and Chittoor districts and the Alur, Adoni and Rayadrug taluks of Bellary district in the State of Madras. The Constitution's First Schedule was amended to insert Andhra as a new Part A State. [1][2][3][5]
1953-12 The States Reorganisation Commission was constituted by the Government of India to investigate the problem of reorganising states on a more rational basis, taking into account regional languages and financial, economic and administrative considerations. [19]
1956-03-16 The President referred the States Reorganisation Bill to the legislatures of the 12 Part A and Part B States affected by the scheme, as required by the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution. [19]
1956-08-31 The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament. It provided for the transfer of the Telangana area of Hyderabad to Andhra and the renaming of the enlarged State, and abolished the existing constitutional distinction between Part A, Part B and Part C States. [18][19]
1956-11-01 The appointed day under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Under the new First Schedule, Andhra Pradesh was formed from the territories specified in section 3 of the Andhra State Act, 1953 and the territories specified in section 3 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. [18][19]
Creation of Andhra State and linguistic reorganisation
1953
Dismissal and arrest of Sheikh Abdullah, 1953: constitutional and legal record
Sheikh Abdullah was the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. In 1953 he was removed from that office, arrested, and a new government was formed under Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, as recorded in a later court judgment and a 2000 Lok Sabha debate. He was then prosecuted in a criminal case called the Kashmir Conspiracy Case before a Jammu court; a 1963 High Court decision dealt with evidence in that trial. The actual dismissal and detention orders are not in the available record.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Dismissal and detention of Sheikh Abdullah
1953
Dismissal and arrest of Sheikh Abdullah, 1953: constitutional and legal record
Sheikh Abdullah was the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. In 1953 he was removed from that office, arrested, and a new government was formed under Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, as recorded in a later court judgment and a 2000 Lok Sabha debate. He was then prosecuted in a criminal case called the Kashmir Conspiracy Case before a Jammu court; a 1963 High Court decision dealt with evidence in that trial. The actual dismissal and detention orders are not in the available record.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators have filed charges in court. The trial is not over, so nobody has been found guilty.
What happened
Sheikh Abdullah was the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. In 1953 he was removed from that office, arrested, and a new government was formed under Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, as recorded in a later court judgment and a 2000 Lok Sabha debate. He was then prosecuted in a criminal case called the Kashmir Conspiracy Case before a Jammu court; a 1963 High Court decision dealt with evidence in that trial. The actual dismissal and detention orders are not in the available record.
Who did it
Dismissal and detention of Sheikh Abdullah
The evidence
In 1953 Sheikh Mohamad Abdulla was dismissed from office and a new Government was formed with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as the Prime Minister [11]. [11]
On 26 January 1957 a new Constitution was framed for Jammu and Kashmir [11]. [11]
A 2000 Lok Sabha debate stated that Sheikh Abdullah was elected Prime Minister in 1952 and then dismissed and arrested, after which Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was appointed [10]. [10]
In the Kashmir Conspiracy Case, Sheikh Mohamad Abdullah was an accused. A prosecution witness alleged that Kh Shah and Sheikh Mohamad Abdullah and others incited him to indulge in subversive activities against the State [1]. [1]
The prosecution tried to have letters produced that the witness said he had received from Sheikh Mohamad Abdullah. The trial judge disallowed the production, and the High Court upheld that decision [1]. [1]
Where it stands today
The criminal trial, the Kashmir Conspiracy Case, was before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, and procedural matters were before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which decided them on 31 December 1963 [1]. The sources do not record any final judgment, acquittal, or later appeal.
What was done
The government of Jammu and Kashmir removed Sheikh Abdullah from the office of Prime Minister in 1953 and formed a new government under Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, as stated in a later court judgment [11]. He was also arrested, as stated in a 2000 Lok Sabha debate [10]. He then faced trial in the Kashmir Conspiracy Case, where the prosecution alleged that he and others incited subversive activities against the State [1].
What it meant for the country
The sources record the removal and prosecution of a chief minister but give no figures on loss, detention duration, or rights outcomes, so the consequences for the country cannot be established from this record.
The sources do not state what happened to people, money, rights or institutions as a result of the 1953 dismissal and arrest. The only later constitutional fact recorded is that a new Constitution for Jammu and Kashmir was framed on 26 January 1957 [11]. [11]
Step by step
1953 Sheikh Mohamad Abdulla was dismissed from office and a new government was formed with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as the Prime Minister, as recorded in a later court judgment [11]. [11]
1953 A 2000 Lok Sabha debate recounted the history: the election of Karan Singh as Sadr-e-Riyasat and Sheikh Abdullah as Prime Minister in 1952, followed by Sheikh Abdullah's dismissal and arrest, and the appointment of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad [10]. [10]
1963-12-31 The Jammu and Kashmir High Court gave judgment in State vs Sheikh Mohamad Abdullah and Ors in the Kashmir Conspiracy Case. The court dealt with applications arising from orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, about prosecution evidence. The judgment records that a prosecution witness alleged Kh Shah and Sheikh Mohamad Abdullah and others incited him to indulge in subversive activities against the State. The court upheld the trial judge's refusal to allow certain letters to be produced by the prosecution [1]. [1]
The First Press Commission was a body set up to look into the state of newspapers in India, including how journalists were paid and treated. It submitted its report on July 14, 1954. Parliament then passed the Working Journalists Act in 1955, which gave journalists rights to notice, bonus, Sunday rest, leave, provident fund and gratuity, and set up a Wage Board to fix their pay. The Act and its rules remain in force, and the Press Council of India was set up in 1966 on the Commission's recommendation.
A law or decision by the government
Press freedom and working conditions
1954
Benefit to the nation
First Press Commission report, 1954
The First Press Commission was a body set up to look into the state of newspapers in India, including how journalists were paid and treated. It submitted its report on July 14, 1954. Parliament then passed the Working Journalists Act in 1955, which gave journalists rights to notice, bonus, Sunday rest, leave, provident fund and gratuity, and set up a Wage Board to fix their pay. The Act and its rules remain in force, and the Press Council of India was set up in 1966 on the Commission's recommendation.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The First Press Commission was a body set up to look into the state of newspapers in India, including how journalists were paid and treated. It submitted its report on July 14, 1954. Parliament then passed the Working Journalists Act in 1955, which gave journalists rights to notice, bonus, Sunday rest, leave, provident fund and gratuity, and set up a Wage Board to fix their pay. The Act and its rules remain in force, and the Press Council of India was set up in 1966 on the Commission's recommendation.
Who did it
Press freedom and working conditions
The evidence
The Press Commission submitted its report on July 14, 1954. [2]
The Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 received the President's assent on December 20, 1955. [2]
The Act defines 'working journalist' as a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such, either whole-time or part-time, in or in relation to one or more newspaper establishments, and includes an editor, a leader-writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy-tester, reporter, correspondent. [9]
The Wage Board under the Act consists of three persons representing employers in relation to newspaper establishments, three persons representing working journalists, and four independent persons, one of whom is or has been a Judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court and who is appointed as the Chairman. [7]
The Press Commission in its report Part I published in 1954 pointed out that there are two major news agencies, the P.T.I. and the U.N.I. [6]
Where it stands today
The Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and the Press Council of India remain in force. No proceedings are shown as pending in the sources.
What was done
The Press Commission, appointed after the Prime Minister's 1951 commitment and a 1952 resolution by the Indian Federation of Working Journalists, enquired into the state of the Press and submitted its report on July 14, 1954. Parliament then passed the Working Journalists (Industrial Disputes) Act, 1955 (assented March 12, 1955) and the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (assented December 20, 1955), incorporating the Commission's recommendations on notice, bonus, Sunday rest, leave, provident fund and gratuity, and leaving wage fixation to a Wage Board. The Central Government constituted the Wage Board on May 2, 1956.
What it meant for the country
The Press Commission's work led to statutory rights for working journalists and the establishment of the Press Council of India in 1966.
Working journalists gained statutory conditions of service: minimum period of notice, bonus, Sunday rest, leave, provident fund and gratuity were incorporated in the 1955 Act from the Press Commission's recommendations. [2]
A Wage Board was constituted on May 2, 1956 to fix rates of wages for working journalists, with equal representatives of employers and working journalists. [2]
The Press Council of India, a statutory and autonomous body, was established in 1966 on the recommendation of the first Press Commission. [1]
Step by step
1951 During the debate in Parliament on the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill, 1951, the Prime Minister said he was prepared to appoint a committee or a commission, including representatives of the Press, to examine the state of the Press and its content. [2]
1952-04 At its session held in April 1952 at Calcutta, the Indian Federation of Working Journalists adopted a resolution for the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the conditions of the Press in India with a view to improving its place, status and functioning in the new democratic set up. [2]
1954-07-14 The Press Commission completed its enquiry and submitted its report. [2]
1955-03-12 Parliament passed the Working Journalists (Industrial Disputes) Act, 1955 (I of 1955), which received the assent of the President. It was an Act to apply the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to working journalists. [2]
1955-12-20 The Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (45 of 1955) received the assent of the President. The recommendations of the Press Commission regarding minimum period of notice, bonus, Sunday rest, leave, and provident fund and gratuity were all incorporated in the Bill; the fixation of minimum rates of wages was left to a minimum wage Board to be constituted by the Central Government. The Working Journalists (Industrial Disputes) Act, 1955 was repealed by section 20 of this Act. [2]
1956-05-02 By a notification dated May 2, 1956, the Central Government constituted a Wage Board under section 8 of the Act for fixing rates of wages in respect of working journalists, consisting of equal representatives of employers in relation to newspaper establishments and working journalists. [2]
1956-07-30 The Central Government published by a notification in the Gazette of India the Working Journalists Wage Board Rules, 1956. [2]
1957-04-22 A meeting of the Wage Board was held from April 22 to 24, 1957, in the office of the Wage Board at Bombay. [2]
1966 The Press Council of India was established on the basis of the recommendation of the first Press Commission for the setting up of a statutory and autonomous body. [1]
1967-10-27 The Central Government by an order dated October 27, 1967 accepted substantially the recommendations of the Wage Board constituted under section 9 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, in respect of wages of working journalists. [6]
Special Marriage Act, 1954: civil marriage for all Indians and its opposition
The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is a law that lets any two people in India marry in a civil ceremony without a religious ceremony, and it changed inheritance rules for such couples. Parliament passed it to replace an older 1872 law that did not allow marriages between people of different religions. The Law Commission later recorded that there was a national debate before and during its passage. The Act remains in force, and amendment bills were introduced in Parliament in 2015 and 2018.
A law or decision by the government
Civil marriage and personal law reform
1954
Benefit to the nation
Special Marriage Act, 1954: civil marriage for all Indians and its opposition
The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is a law that lets any two people in India marry in a civil ceremony without a religious ceremony, and it changed inheritance rules for such couples. Parliament passed it to replace an older 1872 law that did not allow marriages between people of different religions. The Law Commission later recorded that there was a national debate before and during its passage. The Act remains in force, and amendment bills were introduced in Parliament in 2015 and 2018.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is a law that lets any two people in India marry in a civil ceremony without a religious ceremony, and it changed inheritance rules for such couples. Parliament passed it to replace an older 1872 law that did not allow marriages between people of different religions. The Law Commission later recorded that there was a national debate before and during its passage. The Act remains in force, and amendment bills were introduced in Parliament in 2015 and 2018.
Who did it
Civil marriage and personal law reform
The evidence
Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 says a marriage between any two persons may be solemnized under the Act if neither party has a spouse living, neither party is incapable of giving valid consent due to unsoundness of mind or mental disorder, the male has completed 21 years and the female 18 years, and the parties are not within prohibited degrees of relationship. [4]
Section 5 requires the parties to give written notice of intended marriage to the Marriage Officer of the district where at least one of them has resided for at least 30 days immediately before the notice. [3]
The Marriage Officer must keep a Marriage Notice Book open for public inspection, publish the notice, and if an objection is made, inquire into it within 30 days; a party may appeal to the district court against a refusal to solemnize. [1]
Section 21 says succession to the property of a person whose marriage is solemnized under the Act and of the issue of such marriage is regulated by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, with Chapter III of Part V (Special Rules for Parsi Intestates) omitted. [5]
Section 18 says children born after the date of the ceremony of a marriage registered under the Act are deemed legitimate children of their parents. [6]
Where it stands today
The Special Marriage Act, 1954 remains in force. Amendment bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha in 2015 and 2018; the sources do not record their passage.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Special Marriage Act, 1954, replacing the Special Marriage Act, 1872. The Act allows any two persons to marry under its provisions if they meet conditions on age, mental capacity, existing spouse and prohibited relationships; it sets out a notice and objection procedure; it allows registration of marriages already celebrated in other forms; and it applies the Indian Succession Act to property of couples married under it. In 2015 and 2018, members moved and the Lok Sabha adopted motions to introduce bills amending sections 5 and 4 respectively.
What it meant for the country
The Act gave Indians a civil marriage option and secular succession rules, as its provisions show.
Section 4 of the Act allowed a marriage between any two persons to be solemnized under the Act, notwithstanding any other law relating to solemnization of marriages, if conditions on spouse, mental capacity, age and prohibited relationship were met. [4]
Section 21 provided that succession to the property of a person married under the Act and of the issue of such marriage would be regulated by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, ignoring community-specific restrictions and omitting Parsi intestate rules. [5]
Section 18 provided that children born after the date of the ceremony of a marriage registered under the Act would be deemed legitimate. [6]
The Act allowed marriages already celebrated in other forms to be registered under it, turning a religious marriage into a civil marriage if conditions were met. [1][11]
The Act required a written notice of intended marriage, publication of the notice, and allowed objections to be made, with the Marriage Officer required to inquire within 30 days and an appeal to the district court. [1][3]
Step by step
1954 Parliament enacted the Special Marriage Act, 1954, replacing the Special Marriage Act, 1872, which did not recognize inter-religious marriages. [12][1]
2015-04-24 In the Lok Sabha, Shri Rabindra Kumar Jena moved for leave to introduce a Bill further to amend the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (amendment of section 5); the motion was adopted. [8]
2018-08-03 In the Lok Sabha, Shri Gopal Shetty moved for leave to introduce a Bill further to amend the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (amendment of section 4); the motion was adopted. [9]
Citizenship Act, 1955: statutory framework and parliamentary debate
The Citizenship Act, 1955 is India's law that says who is an Indian citizen by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation, and how citizenship can be lost. Parliament passed the Act, and the Central Government made rules and application forms under it. The Act was later amended to add special rules for people who came to Assam from what is now Bangladesh, and it remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Citizenship rules and partition migrants
1955
Mixed
Citizenship Act, 1955: statutory framework and parliamentary debate
The Citizenship Act, 1955 is India's law that says who is an Indian citizen by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation, and how citizenship can be lost. Parliament passed the Act, and the Central Government made rules and application forms under it. The Act was later amended to add special rules for people who came to Assam from what is now Bangladesh, and it remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Citizenship Act, 1955 is India's law that says who is an Indian citizen by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation, and how citizenship can be lost. Parliament passed the Act, and the Central Government made rules and application forms under it. The Act was later amended to add special rules for people who came to Assam from what is now Bangladesh, and it remains in force.
Who did it
Citizenship rules and partition migrants
The evidence
The Citizenship Act, 1955 is the law that sets out acquisition and termination of Indian citizenship [2]. [2]
Section 3 provides citizenship by birth for persons born in India, with conditions changed by the 2003 amendment [3][6]. [3][6]
Section 5 allows the Central Government to register as citizens persons of Indian origin, spouses of citizens, minor children, and Overseas Citizen of India cardholders, subject to conditions [4]. [4]
Section 6A, added by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, contains special provisions for persons of Indian origin who came to Assam from Bangladesh before 1 January 1966 and between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971 [2][7]. [2][7]
Section 9 provides that an Indian citizen who voluntarily acquires another country's citizenship ceases to be an Indian citizen [5]. [5]
Where it stands today
The Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended, and the Citizenship Rules, 2009 remain in force. No pending proceedings are identified in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955, which sets out acquisition and termination of Indian citizenship [2]. The Central Government made the Citizenship Rules, 2009, prescribing application forms for registration and naturalisation [1]. Parliament amended the Act in 1985 and 2003 to add special provisions for Assam migrants and to change citizenship by birth [2][3].
What it meant for the country
The record shows a mixed outcome: the Act gave deemed citizenship to pre-1966 Assam migrants, while those who came between 1966 and 1971 and were detected as foreigners could not vote for ten years after detection [2].
The Act's Assam provisions deemed persons of Indian origin who came to Assam from Bangladesh before 1 January 1966 to be citizens of India from 1 January 1966 [2]. [2]
Persons of Indian origin who came to Assam between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971 and were detected as foreigners had to register and were barred from inclusion in electoral rolls for ten years from detection [2]. [2]
The 2003 amendment narrowed citizenship by birth: a child born in India after its commencement is a citizen only if both parents are citizens, or one parent is a citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant [3]. [3]
The 1976 judgment confirmed that the Central Government, not a court, decides whether an Indian citizen voluntarily acquired another country's citizenship, and a foreign passport creates a presumption that the citizen may rebut [5]. [5]
Step by step
1955 The Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted, establishing the framework for acquisition and termination of Indian citizenship. [2]
1976-07-16 In Abdul Rahim Khan v Union of India, the court held that the Central Government is the authority to decide whether an Indian citizen voluntarily acquired another country's citizenship under Section 9(2), and that a foreign passport raises a presumption the citizen may rebut. [5]
1985 The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 added Section 6A, giving deemed citizenship to persons of Indian origin who came to Assam from Bangladesh before 1 January 1966, and a registration process for those who came between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971. [2]
2003 The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 changed citizenship by birth: a child born in India after its commencement is a citizen only if both parents are citizens, or one parent is a citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant. [3][6]
2009 The Citizenship Rules, 2009 prescribed application forms for registration and naturalisation, including for persons of Indian origin, spouses of Indian citizens, minor children, and Overseas Citizen of India cardholders. [1]
When the government took private land for public purposes, the original Constitution allowed courts to examine whether the compensation paid was adequate. The Fourth Amendment of 1955, passed by Parliament, stopped courts from questioning the amount of compensation and protected a wider set of land reform and welfare laws from challenge under the rights to equality, freedom and property. The Act also added six laws to the Ninth Schedule and protected state monopolies. It stands as part of the Constitution.
A law or decision by the government
Right to property and compensation for land acquisition
1955
Mixed
Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955
When the government took private land for public purposes, the original Constitution allowed courts to examine whether the compensation paid was adequate. The Fourth Amendment of 1955, passed by Parliament, stopped courts from questioning the amount of compensation and protected a wider set of land reform and welfare laws from challenge under the rights to equality, freedom and property. The Act also added six laws to the Ninth Schedule and protected state monopolies. It stands as part of the Constitution.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
When the government took private land for public purposes, the original Constitution allowed courts to examine whether the compensation paid was adequate. The Fourth Amendment of 1955, passed by Parliament, stopped courts from questioning the amount of compensation and protected a wider set of land reform and welfare laws from challenge under the rights to equality, freedom and property. The Act also added six laws to the Ninth Schedule and protected state monopolies. It stands as part of the Constitution.
Who did it
Right to property and compensation for land acquisition
The evidence
The Act is the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, Act 04 of 1955, and commenced on 27 April 1955. [1][2]
It substituted clause (2) of Article 31 to provide that no law shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate. [1][7][8]
It inserted clause (2A) in Article 31, providing that a law not transferring ownership or right to possession to the State or a State-owned corporation shall not be deemed to provide for compulsory acquisition or requisitioning, even if it deprives a person of property. [1][8]
It substituted clause (1) of Article 31A to protect laws covering acquisition of estates, taking over management of property, amalgamation of corporations, extinguishment of managing agents' rights, and mineral or oil agreements from being void under Articles 14, 19 or 31. [1]
It added entries after entry 13 in the Ninth Schedule, including the United Provinces Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948 and the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 as amended. [1][3][7]
Where it stands today
The Act stands as enacted; the sources record no pending proceeding concerning the Fourth Amendment itself.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 on 27 April 1955. It substituted Article 31(2) to bar courts from questioning the adequacy of compensation, inserted clause (2A), substituted Article 31A(1) to cover more welfare laws, added six entries to the Ninth Schedule, and substituted Article 305 to protect state monopolies.
What it meant for the country
The amendment expanded state powers over property and shielded welfare laws from judicial review, but it did so by curtailing property owners' ability to challenge acquisitions, a trade-off recorded in the statute and a Supreme Court ruling.
The Act removed the power of any court to question a law on the ground that the compensation provided for compulsory acquisition was not adequate. [1][8]
After the amendment, the Supreme Court held that a State law for requisition or acquisition of property could not be attacked as offending Article 19(1)(f), limiting property owners' grounds of challenge. [9]
Parliament's stated object was to end 'dilatory and wasteful litigation' and place land reform and welfare laws above challenge in courts, which strengthened state acquisition powers but reduced judicial oversight. [1][5][10]
Step by step
1954-12-17 The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Bill was presented or published; the Gazette of India shows 17 December 1954. [1][7]
1955-04-27 The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 commenced. It amended Articles 31, 31A and 305 and added entries to the Ninth Schedule. [1][7]
Land reform laws in India were repeatedly challenged in court by landholders claiming they violated property-rights protections. In 1955 Parliament passed a constitutional amendment that expanded the categories of laws shielded from such challenges and added six more land and property laws to the Ninth Schedule. The amendment remains in force, though a later Supreme Court ruling limited the Ninth Schedule's immunity for laws added after 24 April 1973.
Land reform laws in India were repeatedly challenged in court by landholders claiming they violated property-rights protections. In 1955 Parliament passed a constitutional amendment that expanded the categories of laws shielded from such challenges and added six more land and property laws to the Ninth Schedule. The amendment remains in force, though a later Supreme Court ruling limited the Ninth Schedule's immunity for laws added after 24 April 1973.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Land reform laws in India were repeatedly challenged in court by landholders claiming they violated property-rights protections. In 1955 Parliament passed a constitutional amendment that expanded the categories of laws shielded from such challenges and added six more land and property laws to the Ninth Schedule. The amendment remains in force, though a later Supreme Court ruling limited the Ninth Schedule's immunity for laws added after 24 April 1973.
Who did it
Property rights and land reform laws
The evidence
The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, Act 4 of 1955, was published in the Gazette of India on 17 December 1954 and came into force on 27 April 1955. [9]
The Statement of Objects and Reasons says the amendment responded to recent Supreme Court decisions giving a wide meaning to Article 31, and sought to extend Article 31A to land ceilings, town and country planning, minerals and oil, temporary state management, and company-law reforms. [9][11]
The revised Article 31A(1) listed six kinds of laws—acquisition of estates, temporary state management, amalgamation, extinguishing company officials' rights, and cancelling mineral or oil agreements—and provided they shall not be deemed void under Articles 14, 19 or 31; State laws needed the President's assent. [9]
The amendment inserted the words 'janman right' and 'raiyat, under-raiyat' into clause (2) of Article 31A. [9]
It substituted Article 305 to save existing laws and state monopolies from freedom-of-trade challenges under Articles 301 and 303. [9]
Where it stands today
No litigation against the Fourth Amendment itself is identified in the sources and the amendment remains in force. As reported by a legal-notes source, the Supreme Court held in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are subject to judicial review; this does not directly affect the 1955 insertion.
What was done
Parliament passed the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, which rewrote Article 31A to shield land reform, mining, company management and state-monopoly laws from fundamental-rights challenges; added six laws to the Ninth Schedule; substituted Article 305; and made compensation for compulsory acquisition non-justiciable.
What it meant for the country
The amendment curtailed property owners' fundamental-rights challenges to land reform and acquisition laws and made the adequacy of compensation non-justiciable, with no offsetting gain quantified in the sources.
Owners of estates, mines, companies or other property affected by the newly protected categories could no longer ask courts to strike down the law under Articles 14, 19 or 31. [9]
The adequacy of compensation for compulsory acquisition became non-justiciable, so courts could not review whether compensation was sufficient. [17]
The six Acts added to the Ninth Schedule received complete retrospective validation, extinguishing pending and future fundamental-rights challenges to them. [12]
Step by step
1954-12-17 The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Bill was presented and published; its Statement of Objects and Reasons said it would amend Articles 31, 31A and 305 and the Ninth Schedule. [9][17]
1955-04-27 The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 (Act 4 of 1955) came into force. It substituted a new clause (1) in Article 31A, amended clause (2), substituted Article 305, and added entries after entry 13 in the Ninth Schedule. [9]
1973-04-24 The Supreme Court delivered Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which developed the basic structure doctrine and later became the basis for limiting Ninth Schedule immunity for laws inserted after this date. [6][8]
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is a law that lets the central government control the production, supply, distribution and trade of goods declared essential, to keep them available at fair prices. Parliament enacted it on 1 April 1955, replacing an earlier ordinance and state laws. It gives the government power to fix prices, set stock limits, require sale of stocks to the government, and seize and confiscate goods for breaches; in 1981 Parliament added temporary special provisions making offences non-bailable with minimum imprisonment. The Act remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Control of essential commodities
1955
Essential Commodities Act, 1955
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is a law that lets the central government control the production, supply, distribution and trade of goods declared essential, to keep them available at fair prices. Parliament enacted it on 1 April 1955, replacing an earlier ordinance and state laws. It gives the government power to fix prices, set stock limits, require sale of stocks to the government, and seize and confiscate goods for breaches; in 1981 Parliament added temporary special provisions making offences non-bailable with minimum imprisonment. The Act remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is a law that lets the central government control the production, supply, distribution and trade of goods declared essential, to keep them available at fair prices. Parliament enacted it on 1 April 1955, replacing an earlier ordinance and state laws. It gives the government power to fix prices, set stock limits, require sale of stocks to the government, and seize and confiscate goods for breaches; in 1981 Parliament added temporary special provisions making offences non-bailable with minimum imprisonment. The Act remains in force.
Who did it
Control of essential commodities
The evidence
The Act is Act 10 of 1955, enacted on 1 April 1955, and extends to the whole of India. [2][5][6]
For the purposes of the Act, 'essential commodity' means a commodity specified in the Schedule; the central government may amend the Schedule by notification to add or remove commodities. [8]
Section 3 empowers the central government to regulate or prohibit production, supply, distribution and trade in essential commodities; control prices; regulate storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption by licences or permits; prohibit withholding from sale; and require sale of stock to the government. [1][2][3][6]
Section 5 allows the central government to delegate the power to make orders or issue notifications under section 3 to state governments or officers subordinate to the central or state government. [7]
Section 6A provides for confiscation of seized essential commodities by the Collector of the district, and section 6B requires a show cause notice to the owner before confiscation. [2][6][11]
Where it stands today
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 remains in force as law. No proceedings are pending; the matter is a standing statute.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, giving the central government power to regulate or prohibit production, supply, distribution and trade in scheduled essential commodities, control prices, require sale of stocks to the government, delegate powers to states, and seize and confiscate commodities for contravention. In 1981 Parliament added temporary special provisions for hoarding and blackmarketing, making offences non-bailable with minimum three months' imprisonment and summary trial by Special Courts.
What it meant for the country
The documents establish the Act's coercive powers — price control, compulsory sale, confiscation, non-bailable offences with minimum imprisonment — but do not record their actual consequences in money, people or rights.
The Act authorises the central government to regulate or prohibit production, supply, distribution and trade in essential commodities, control the price at which they may be bought or sold, and require anyone holding stock to sell it to the government. [1][2][6]
The Act authorises seizure of essential commodities and confiscation by the district Collector, including any package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying them. [2][6]
The 1981 special provisions made all offences under the Act non-bailable and imposed minimum mandatory imprisonment of not less than three months, with trial in a summary way by Special Courts. [10]
The central government may add or remove commodities from the Schedule by notification in the Official Gazette, so the scope of what counts as an essential commodity can change by executive action. [8]
Step by step
1955-04-01 The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955) came into force. It provides, in the interest of the general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain commodities. [2][5]
1955-04-01 Section 16 of the Act repealed the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955 and any other state law controlling production, supply, distribution and trade in essential commodities. Orders, licences, permits and directions made under the repealed laws were deemed to continue under the new Act. [4]
1981 Parliament enacted the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, making temporary amendments to the principal Act to deal with hoarding and blackmarketing: summary trial of offences, Special Courts, minimum mandatory imprisonment of not less than three months, all offences non-bailable, and sale of seized commodities through fair price shops. [10]
1982-09-01 The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 was enforced in all States and Union territories except the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep and Mizoram. [10]
1992-08-27 The duration of the 1981 special provisions was extended from ten years to fifteen years, with retrospective effect from 27 August 1992, by Act 34 of 1993. [10]
First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar) report, 1955
In 1953 the President appointed a commission, headed by Kaka Kalelkar, to study which communities in India were socially and educationally backward, besides Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to recommend steps such as reservations. The commission submitted its report on 30 March 1955, listing 2,399 backward castes, 837 of them as most backward, and recommended measures for their uplift. The Union government did not accept the report. In a memorandum placed before Parliament on 3 September 1956, it said recognising castes as backward could keep caste distinctions alive, and that the commission had not worked out objective tests. On 14 August 1961 the central government told states that economic tests were better than caste and that an all-India list would have no practical utility, so states were left to make their own lists and reservations.
Closed without a verdict
Backward classes and reservation policy
1955
Mixed
First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar) report, 1955
In 1953 the President appointed a commission, headed by Kaka Kalelkar, to study which communities in India were socially and educationally backward, besides Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to recommend steps such as reservations. The commission submitted its report on 30 March 1955, listing 2,399 backward castes, 837 of them as most backward, and recommended measures for their uplift. The Union government did not accept the report. In a memorandum placed before Parliament on 3 September 1956, it said recognising castes as backward could keep caste distinctions alive, and that the commission had not worked out objective tests. On 14 August 1961 the central government told states that economic tests were better than caste and that an all-India list would have no practical utility, so states were left to make their own lists and reservations.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
In 1953 the President appointed a commission, headed by Kaka Kalelkar, to study which communities in India were socially and educationally backward, besides Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to recommend steps such as reservations. The commission submitted its report on 30 March 1955, listing 2,399 backward castes, 837 of them as most backward, and recommended measures for their uplift. The Union government did not accept the report. In a memorandum placed before Parliament on 3 September 1956, it said recognising castes as backward could keep caste distinctions alive, and that the commission had not worked out objective tests. On 14 August 1961 the central government told states that economic tests were better than caste and that an all-India list would have no practical utility, so states were left to make their own lists and reservations.
Who did it
Backward classes and reservation policy
The evidence
The first Backward Classes Commission was set up by a Presidential Order under Article 340 on 29 January 1953 and was known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission. [1][8]
The Commission submitted its report on 30 March 1955 and prepared a list of 2,399 backward castes, out of which 837 were classified as most backward. [1][7]
The Chairman of the Commission, Kaka Kalelkar, had second thoughts after signing the report. [1]
The Central Government's memorandum of action, placed before Parliament on 3 September 1956, stated that the caste system is the greatest hindrance to progress towards an egalitarian society and that recognition of certain specified castes as backward may serve to maintain and perpetuate existing caste distinctions. [1]
The Central Government found fault with certain tests adopted by the Commission for identifying backward classes; one important reason it could not accept the recommendations was that the Commission had not worked out objective tests and criteria for proper classification. [1]
Where it stands today
No proceedings are pending. The Commission's work ended with the Union government's non-acceptance of its report. The question of backward classes was later taken up by the Mandal Commission in 1979.
What was done
The Union government considered the report and did not accept it. It told Parliament that caste-based recognition of backwardness could maintain distinctions and that the commission's tests were flawed. It then wrote to state governments on 14 August 1961 that economic tests should be preferred and that an all-India list of Other Backward Classes would have no practical utility, so it made no central reservation for them and left the states to act.
What it meant for the country
The report's rejection meant that the Union government did not give Other Backward Classes any reservation in central services, while states were left to create their own lists and reservations, leaving the national question unresolved until the Mandal Commission was appointed.
The Central Government decided that no all-India list of Backward Classes should be drawn up and no reservation should be made in Central Government service for any group of Backward Classes other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. [8]
State governments were left to choose their own criteria and draw up their own lists, and various states then appointed their own commissions for identifying backward classes and reserved certain percentages of posts in their favour. [1]
Step by step
1953-01-29 The President appointed a Backward Classes Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution, later known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes and recommend steps for their improvement. [1][8]
1955-03-30 The Commission submitted its report. It prepared a list of 2,399 backward castes, of which 837 were classified as most backward. [1][7][8]
1956-09-03 The Government of India's memorandum of action on the report was placed before Parliament. It said the caste system is the greatest hindrance to an egalitarian society, that recognising specified castes as backward may perpetuate caste distinctions, and that the Commission's tests for identifying backward classes were faulty. [1]
1956-09-25 The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1956 came into force. After the Kaka Kalelkar Commission report, entry 20 for Bihar was substituted to read 'Lohara' or 'Lohra'. [3]
1961-08-14 The Central Government wrote to all State Governments that while states have discretion to choose their own criteria for backwardness, in the Government of India's view economic tests would be better than going by caste, and that an all-India list drawn up by the Centre would have no practical utility because states could adhere to their own lists. [1]
1979 The President of India appointed another Backward Class Commission under Article 340, popularly known as the Mandal Commission, to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes. [1]
Hindu Code Bills, 1955–56: Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, and related legislation
The Hindu Code was a set of proposed changes to Hindu personal law on marriage, inheritance, guardianship and adoption, first discussed as one combined bill. It could not be passed as one measure, so Parliament split it into four laws: the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Those laws made a Hindu woman the full owner of property she possessed, introduced divorce and judicial separation, and set guardianship rules; a 2005 amendment later gave daughters the same right as sons in joint family property. The effort faced strong resistance from orthodox sections and was shelved in 1951 before it was passed, and it stands today as enacted law.
A law or decision by the government
Hindu personal law reform
1955
Benefit to the nation
Hindu Code Bills, 1955–56: Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, and related legislation
The Hindu Code was a set of proposed changes to Hindu personal law on marriage, inheritance, guardianship and adoption, first discussed as one combined bill. It could not be passed as one measure, so Parliament split it into four laws: the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Those laws made a Hindu woman the full owner of property she possessed, introduced divorce and judicial separation, and set guardianship rules; a 2005 amendment later gave daughters the same right as sons in joint family property. The effort faced strong resistance from orthodox sections and was shelved in 1951 before it was passed, and it stands today as enacted law.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Hindu Code was a set of proposed changes to Hindu personal law on marriage, inheritance, guardianship and adoption, first discussed as one combined bill. It could not be passed as one measure, so Parliament split it into four laws: the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Those laws made a Hindu woman the full owner of property she possessed, introduced divorce and judicial separation, and set guardianship rules; a 2005 amendment later gave daughters the same right as sons in joint family property. The effort faced strong resistance from orthodox sections and was shelved in 1951 before it was passed, and it stands today as enacted law.
Who did it
Hindu personal law reform
The evidence
Parliament originally intended to pass one Act comprehensively described as the 'Hindu Code', but later split the original Code into four Acts which were passed one after the other [3]. [3]
The four Acts that constitute the Hindu Code are the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 [2,3]. [2][3]
Traditional and conservative Hindu opinion resisted the Hindu Code on the ground that Parliament was invading the personal law of Hindus [3]. [3]
In the parliamentary debate on the 2005 amendment, it was recorded that the Hindu Code Bill faced very stiff resistance from various orthodox sections and was shelved in 1951 [6]. [6]
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner [4,8,9]. [4][8][9]
Where it stands today
The four statutes stand as enacted law, and the Succession Act was amended in 2005. No pending court proceeding is recorded in the sources. Law Commission proposals to further amend section 15 of the Succession Act were made in its 207th Report, but no enactment of them is shown in the sources.
What was done
Parliament first shelved a single Hindu Code Bill in 1951, then from 1955 to 1956 passed the reform as four separate statutes. In 2005 it amended the Hindu Succession Act to make a daughter a coparcener by birth with the same rights and liabilities as a son.
What it meant for the country
The record shows a net gain in rights: Hindu women became full owners of their property, and daughters acquired equal rights as sons in joint family property through the 2005 amendment.
Hindu women gained full ownership of property they possessed: the Hindu Succession Act ended their status as limited owners of such property [4,8,9]. [4][8][9]
From 2005, daughters gained the same right as sons to be joint family property holders by birth, giving them equal claims to coparcenary property [4,11]. [4][11]
The Law Commission recorded that the earlier exclusion of daughters from coparcenary ownership had led to oppression and negation of their fundamental right to equality, a harm the 2005 amendment was intended to remove [5]. [5]
The Hindu Marriage Act introduced radical changes in divorce and judicial separation, altering what remedies spouses could obtain [3]. [3]
The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act made the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration for courts appointing guardians, rather than simply a family claim [1]. [1]
Step by step
1951 The Hindu Code Bill was shelved after facing very stiff resistance from various orthodox sections of society [6]. [6]
1954 Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, defending the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill rather than a uniform civil code in Parliament, said: "I do not think that at the present moment the time is ripe in India for me to try to push it through" [12]. [12]
1955 Parliament passed the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which introduced radical changes in divorce and judicial separation while keeping some marriage restrictions [3]. [3]
1956 Parliament passed the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Its section 14 made property possessed by a female Hindu her absolute property, not limited ownership [4,8]. [4][8]
1956 Parliament passed the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It set out natural guardians for Hindu minors and made the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in court appointments [1]. [1]
1956 Parliament passed the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 [2,3]. [2][3]
2005 The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005) amended section 6 so that a daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth in the same manner as a son, with the same rights and liabilities [4,11]. [4][11]
2005-08-29 During the motion for consideration of the 2005 amendment, Parliament recorded that the earlier Hindu Code Bill had faced very stiff resistance and was shelved in 1951 [6]. [6]
Nationalisation of the Imperial Bank of India: State Bank of India Act, 1955
The Imperial Bank of India was a large private bank. In 1955, Parliament passed a law that took the bank into government hands: its shares went to the Reserve Bank of India, the country's central bank, and its business went to a new government-owned bank called the State Bank of India. Shareholders were entitled to compensation under the law's First Schedule. The law stands today, and the State Bank of India continues as the institution created by it.
A law or decision by the government
Imperial Bank of India and its shareholders
1955
Nationalisation of the Imperial Bank of India: State Bank of India Act, 1955
The Imperial Bank of India was a large private bank. In 1955, Parliament passed a law that took the bank into government hands: its shares went to the Reserve Bank of India, the country's central bank, and its business went to a new government-owned bank called the State Bank of India. Shareholders were entitled to compensation under the law's First Schedule. The law stands today, and the State Bank of India continues as the institution created by it.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Imperial Bank of India was a large private bank. In 1955, Parliament passed a law that took the bank into government hands: its shares went to the Reserve Bank of India, the country's central bank, and its business went to a new government-owned bank called the State Bank of India. Shareholders were entitled to compensation under the law's First Schedule. The law stands today, and the State Bank of India continues as the institution created by it.
Who did it
Imperial Bank of India and its shareholders
The evidence
The State Bank of India Act, 1955 constituted the State Bank of India to carry on the business of banking and for the purpose of taking over the undertaking of the Imperial Bank. [1][3][10]
On the appointed day, all shares in the capital of the Imperial Bank were transferred to and vested in the Reserve Bank, free of all trusts, liabilities and encumbrances. [1][10][12]
On the appointed day, the undertaking of the Imperial Bank was transferred to and vested in the State Bank, including all property, cash balances, reserve funds, investments, debts, liabilities and obligations. [1][10][12]
The issued capital of the State Bank on the appointed day was five crores, sixty-two lakhs and fifty thousand rupees divided into five lakhs, sixty-two thousand and five hundred shares, all allotted to the Reserve Bank in lieu of the shares of the Imperial Bank. [5]
Every person registered as a holder of shares in the Imperial Bank immediately before the appointed day was entitled to compensation in accordance with the First Schedule. [7][8]
Where it stands today
The State Bank of India Act, 1955 stands as enacted. No proceedings are recorded in the sources.
What was done
The Central Government, through the State Bank of India Act, 1955, took over the Imperial Bank of India. On 1 July 1955, the appointed day, the Imperial Bank's shares were transferred to the Reserve Bank of India and its undertaking to the newly constituted State Bank of India. Shareholders registered immediately before that day were entitled to compensation under the First Schedule.
What it meant for the country
The Act transferred the Imperial Bank to state ownership and required the new State Bank to open at least 400 additional branches within five years, but the sources do not record the compensation actually paid or the consequences for shareholders.
The State Bank was required to establish not less than 400 branches in addition to the Imperial Bank's existing branches within five years of the appointed day, and no such branch could be closed without the previous approval of the Reserve Bank. [1][10]
The Central Government was required to hold at all times not less than 51 per cent of the issued capital consisting of equity shares of the State Bank. [5]
Shareholders of the Imperial Bank were entitled to compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, but the amount of compensation is not stated in the sources. [7][8]
Step by step
1955 The Act provided that every person who immediately before the appointed day was registered as a holder of shares in the Imperial Bank was entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions contained in the First Schedule. [7][8]
1955-06-23 The State Bank of India (Amendment) Ordinance, 1955 was promulgated, before the appointed day of 1 July 1955. [1][10]
1955-07-01 The appointed day under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, on which the Act came into force. [1][10]
1955-07-01 On the appointed day, all shares in the capital of the Imperial Bank were transferred to and vested in the Reserve Bank, free of all trusts, liabilities and encumbrances, and the undertaking of the Imperial Bank was transferred to and vested in the State Bank. [1][10][12]
1955-07-01 On the appointed day, the issued capital of the State Bank was five crores, sixty-two lakhs and fifty thousand rupees divided into five lakhs, sixty-two thousand and five hundred shares, all of which stood allotted to the Reserve Bank in lieu of the shares of the Imperial Bank transferred to it. [5]
Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955: protective legislation and enforcement record
Untouchability was abolished by Article 17 of the Constitution, which also said that enforcing any disability arising from it would be an offence. To set out punishments, Parliament passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, which made preaching or practising untouchability and enforcing such disabilities punishable with jail and fines, and made these offences ones the police could investigate without a court order. The law was brought into force in 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976, and strengthened after a government committee reported in 1969. It remains in force as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
A law or decision by the government
Untouchability and civil rights
1955
Mixed
Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955: protective legislation and enforcement record
Untouchability was abolished by Article 17 of the Constitution, which also said that enforcing any disability arising from it would be an offence. To set out punishments, Parliament passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, which made preaching or practising untouchability and enforcing such disabilities punishable with jail and fines, and made these offences ones the police could investigate without a court order. The law was brought into force in 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976, and strengthened after a government committee reported in 1969. It remains in force as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Untouchability was abolished by Article 17 of the Constitution, which also said that enforcing any disability arising from it would be an offence. To set out punishments, Parliament passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, which made preaching or practising untouchability and enforcing such disabilities punishable with jail and fines, and made these offences ones the police could investigate without a court order. The law was brought into force in 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976, and strengthened after a government committee reported in 1969. It remains in force as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
Who did it
Untouchability and civil rights
The evidence
Article 17 of the Constitution abolished untouchability and made enforcement of any disability arising from it an offence punishable by law. [4][11]
Parliament passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 under Article 35 of the Constitution; it was enforced on 1 June 1955. [1][6]
The Act made preaching and practice of untouchability and enforcement of disabilities punishable, and offences under it were cognizable. [1]
Section 7 prescribed imprisonment of not less than one month and not more than six months and a fine of not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees for offences such as preventing a person from exercising rights, molestation, boycott, incitement, or insult on the ground of untouchability. [3]
Section 5 prescribed the same penalty for refusing admission to hospitals, dispensaries, educational institutions or hostels on the ground of untouchability. [13]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. No pending appeal or proceeding is identified in the sources; the 1964 Behari Lal conviction was decided on revision.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 under Article 35 of the Constitution and brought it into force. It made preaching or practising untouchability and enforcing disabilities punishable, with imprisonment and fines, and allowed courts to cancel or suspend licences. The Government of India appointed the Elavaperumal Committee in 1965; after its 1969 report, Parliament amended the Act and renamed it the Protection of Civil Rights Act.
What it meant for the country
The Act created a legal remedy against untouchability and produced at least one documented conviction, but a court said the constitutional abolition was fulfilled 'in law though not in fact'.
The Act gave people subjected to untouchability a legal remedy: it made the practice and enforcement of disabilities punishable with imprisonment and fines, and allowed courts to cancel or suspend licences. [1]
A court observed that Article 17's abolition of untouchability was fulfilled 'at least in law though not in fact'. [8]
The sources document one conviction in the decade after enactment: Behari Lal and another were convicted under Section 7(1)(b) in 1964 and fined. [10]
Step by step
1955-06-01 The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was brought into force. It prescribed punishment for the preaching and practice of untouchability and for enforcing disabilities arising from it, and made offences under it cognizable. [1][6]
1957-09-10 In Devarajiah v. B. Padmanna, a court held that the complaint did not disclose an offence under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, because the alleged social boycott related to religious observances and not to birth-based untouchability. [15]
1960-03-25 The Kerala High Court dealt with a State appeal and revision arising from a prosecution of four accused under Section 3 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955. [12]
1964-09-10 A court altered the conviction of Behari Lal and another from Section 6 to Section 7(1)(b) of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 and reduced their fine. [10]
1965-04 The Government of India appointed the Committee on Untouchability, Educational and Economic Development of the Scheduled Castes under Shri L. Elavaperumal to examine the working of the Act and recommend amendments. [6]
1969-01 The Elavaperumal Committee submitted its report recommending amendments to plug loopholes and make the penal provisions more stringent. [6]
1976-11-19 The Act was renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and amendments substituted stricter minimum penalties for several offences. [1][6][13]
Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955
In the 1950s, after a Press Commission examined conditions in the newspaper industry, Parliament passed a law to regulate the pay and service conditions of journalists and other newspaper employees. The law set up wage boards—with employer, employee and independent members chaired by a judge—to fix or revise wages, and it also provided for gratuity, holidays and other benefits. The rules were issued in 1957 and the law was amended in 1996, and it remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Press labour rights
1955
Benefit to the nation
Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955
In the 1950s, after a Press Commission examined conditions in the newspaper industry, Parliament passed a law to regulate the pay and service conditions of journalists and other newspaper employees. The law set up wage boards—with employer, employee and independent members chaired by a judge—to fix or revise wages, and it also provided for gratuity, holidays and other benefits. The rules were issued in 1957 and the law was amended in 1996, and it remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In the 1950s, after a Press Commission examined conditions in the newspaper industry, Parliament passed a law to regulate the pay and service conditions of journalists and other newspaper employees. The law set up wage boards—with employer, employee and independent members chaired by a judge—to fix or revise wages, and it also provided for gratuity, holidays and other benefits. The rules were issued in 1957 and the law was amended in 1996, and it remains in force.
Who did it
Press labour rights
The evidence
The Act is called the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and extends to the whole of India. [2][4]
For working journalists, the Act allows the Central Government to fix or revise rates of wages for time work and piece work, and to constitute a Wage Board with three employer representatives, three working journalist representatives, and four independent persons, one being a former or sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge as chairman. [2]
For non-journalist newspaper employees, section 13C provides for a Wage Board with the same composition. [1][9]
A working journalist is defined as a person whose principal avocation is journalism and who is employed as such, including editors, reporters, correspondents, cartoonists, news-photographers and proof-readers, but excluding those mainly in managerial or administrative capacities. [5]
Section 5 provides for payment of gratuity to working journalists on termination, retirement, resignation or death, equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of service or any part in excess of six months, subject to certain caps. [6]
Where it stands today
No court or other proceeding is recorded in these sources; the Act and rules remain in force.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in 1955. The Central Government made the rules under the Act in 1957. It constituted wage boards as and when necessary for working journalists and non-journalist employees, and Parliament amended the Act in 1996.
What it meant for the country
The law and rules secured wage-fixing and gratuity rights for press workers, which is a gain for their working conditions.
The Act gave working journalists a right to gratuity equal to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of service (or part exceeding six months) when their services were terminated, they retired, or they died, after at least three years of continuous service. [6]
The 1957 rules entitled working journalists to wages on holidays and during casual leave as if they were on duty. [3]
Wage boards were required to include three representatives of employers, three of employees, and four independent persons, one being a former or sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge as chairman, giving workers a voice in wage-setting. [1][2]
The rules overrode inconsistent agreements, ensuring the protections could not be contracted away, while allowing more favourable benefits to stand. [3]
Step by step
1955 The Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 was passed, extending to the whole of India. [2][4]
1957 The Central Government made the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957 under section 29 of the Act. [3]
1961-07-01 Section 5 of the Act made gratuity payable for voluntary resignation on or after 1 July 1961 in specified cases. [6][12]
1996-01-01 The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1996 (Act 34 of 1996) was published and commenced. [11]
Before 1956, companies in India were governed by the Indian Companies Act of 1913. Parliament passed the Companies Act, 1956 on 18 January 1956 to consolidate and amend the law on how companies are formed, run, meet and report to investors. It was amended many times and was replaced by the Companies Act, 2013 on 29 August 2013.
A law or decision by the government
Corporate regulation
1956
Companies Act, 1956
Before 1956, companies in India were governed by the Indian Companies Act of 1913. Parliament passed the Companies Act, 1956 on 18 January 1956 to consolidate and amend the law on how companies are formed, run, meet and report to investors. It was amended many times and was replaced by the Companies Act, 2013 on 29 August 2013.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Before 1956, companies in India were governed by the Indian Companies Act of 1913. Parliament passed the Companies Act, 1956 on 18 January 1956 to consolidate and amend the law on how companies are formed, run, meet and report to investors. It was amended many times and was replaced by the Companies Act, 2013 on 29 August 2013.
Who did it
Corporate regulation
The evidence
The Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) was published on 18 January 1956 and commenced on 18 January 1956; its object was to amend and consolidate the law relating to companies. [9][5]
The last major amendment of the predecessor Indian Companies Act, 1913 was made in 1936 by the Indian Companies (Amendment) Act, 1936 (22 of 1936). [5]
Section 25 allowed the Central Government to license associations for promoting commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other useful object to omit "Limited" or "Private Limited" from their names. [1]
A company licensed under section 25 could be fined up to 5,000 rupees for every day of continuing default if it failed to change its name after revocation of a licence containing the words "Chamber of Commerce". [1]
Section 166 required every company to hold an annual general meeting each year, with not more than fifteen months between one annual general meeting and the next, and allowed a first annual general meeting within eighteen months of incorporation. [3]
Where it stands today
The Companies Act, 1956 is no longer the governing statute; it was repealed on 29 August 2013 by the Companies Act, 2013. No pending proceedings under the 1956 Act are identified in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956) on 18 January 1956, with the stated object of amending and consolidating the law relating to companies. The law was amended several times, including by Acts in 1960, 1964, 1965, 1974, 1977, 1985, 1988, 2001, 2002 and 2003, and was repealed by the Companies Act, 2013 on 29 August 2013.
What it meant for the country
The sources set out the statutory framework and its repeal, but do not record measurable consequences for companies, investors or public institutions.
Section 166 required every company to hold an annual general meeting each year, with not more than fifteen months between meetings, placing a recurring shareholder oversight obligation on companies. [3]
Section 56 required a prospectus to state specified matters and set out specified reports, and made issuing an application form for shares or debentures without the prescribed memorandum punishable with a fine up to 50,000 rupees. [7]
Section 25 allowed the Central Government, by licence, to permit charitable or other useful-object companies to be registered with limited liability without using the word "Limited" or "Private Limited" in their names. [1]
The 1956 Act was repealed by the Companies Act, 2013, ending the 1956 regulatory regime as the general law for companies. [9]
Step by step
1956-01-18 The Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) was published and commenced. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons said the Bill's object was to amend and consolidate the law relating to companies. [9][5]
1960 The Companies Act was amended by Act 65 of 1960 to overcome practical difficulties, remove drafting defects and better fulfil the Act's purposes. [5]
1964-07-05 The Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 1964 was promulgated by the President. [5]
1965 The Companies (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Act 31 of 1965) was passed following recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on the administration of Dalmia-Jain Companies. [5]
1975-02-01 Section 58A, relating to acceptance of deposits, was inserted by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1974 and came into force on 1 February 1975. [5]
1977 The Companies Act was amended by Act 46 of 1977. [5]
1985 Act 35 of 1985 amended the Act; the source notes the then existing blanket ban on political contributions by companies under section 293A. [5]
1988 Act 31 of 1988 amended the Act in light of the Sachar Committee recommendations. [5]
2001-01-01 The Companies (Amendment) Act, 2001 (57 of 2001) amended the Companies Act, 1956. [9]
2003-01-01 The Companies (Amendment) Act, 2002 (1 of 2003) and the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 (11 of 2003) amended the Companies Act, 1956. [9]
2013-08-29 The Companies Act, 1956 was repealed by the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013). [9]
First Law Commission report on liability of the state, 1956
Under India's Constitution the central and state governments can be sued, but in the 1950s the rules on when they had to pay for wrongful acts by officials were unclear. In 1956 the First Law Commission, chaired by M.C. Setalvad, submitted its first report, titled 'Liability of the State in Tort', recommending that the central government pass a law on the lines of the British Crown Proceedings Act 1947 to make the State liable for civil wrongs by its servants. The government did not pass that law. A 2021 Madras High Court order recorded that the 1956 recommendation had still not been enacted as law.
Closed without a verdict
Liability of the state and tort law
1956
Harm to the nation
First Law Commission report on liability of the state, 1956
Under India's Constitution the central and state governments can be sued, but in the 1950s the rules on when they had to pay for wrongful acts by officials were unclear. In 1956 the First Law Commission, chaired by M.C. Setalvad, submitted its first report, titled 'Liability of the State in Tort', recommending that the central government pass a law on the lines of the British Crown Proceedings Act 1947 to make the State liable for civil wrongs by its servants. The government did not pass that law. A 2021 Madras High Court order recorded that the 1956 recommendation had still not been enacted as law.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
Under India's Constitution the central and state governments can be sued, but in the 1950s the rules on when they had to pay for wrongful acts by officials were unclear. In 1956 the First Law Commission, chaired by M.C. Setalvad, submitted its first report, titled 'Liability of the State in Tort', recommending that the central government pass a law on the lines of the British Crown Proceedings Act 1947 to make the State liable for civil wrongs by its servants. The government did not pass that law. A 2021 Madras High Court order recorded that the 1956 recommendation had still not been enacted as law.
Who did it
Liability of the state and tort law
The evidence
The First Law Commission's First Report was titled 'Liability of the State in Tort' and was prepared after discussion at meetings of the Statute Revision Section on 11 February 1955 and 11 March 1956. [1]
The report was taken up on the initiative of the President of India, to consider whether legislation on the lines of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 should be enacted; it found the law of state liability for tortious acts to be 'in a state of uncertainty'. [1]
Article 300 of the Constitution provided that the Union and State governments could sue and be sued in the like cases as before the Constitution came into force. [1]
The First Law Commission recommended that the Central Government enact a law covering the field of liability of the State in tort; the recommendation was not enacted as law. [2]
The Supreme Court in M.C.D. v. Murjani (2014) 16 SCC 14 reiterated the necessity for comprehensive legislation on the tortious liability of the State and referred the matter to the Law Commission. [2]
Where it stands today
The recommendation in the 1956 report was never enacted into law; no bill became an Act. A writ petition filed in 2020 before the Madras High Court (W.P.(MD).No.16274 of 2020, order dated 17 August 2021) raised the question of when Parliament would bring comprehensive legislation on torts and state liability. The court suo motu impleaded the Union of India and Tamil Nadu authorities. As of that order, no such legislation had been enacted.
What was done
The First Law Commission prepared and submitted its First Report titled 'Liability of the State in Tort', recommending that the Central Government enact a law covering state liability in tort. The Central Government and Parliament did not enact the recommended legislation.
What it meant for the country
The 1956 recommendation that India enact a statutory law on state liability in tort was never implemented, leaving citizens without the remedy the Law Commission had called for.
As of the 2021 Madras High Court order, citizens lacked a statutory remedy for tortious wrongs committed by the State or its officials, because the 1956 Law Commission recommendation had not been enacted as law. [2]
The gap persisted for more than six decades: the High Court noted the 1956 recommendation remained unimplemented 'in spite of the judgments' of the Supreme Court calling for legislation on state liability. [2]
Step by step
1955-02-11 The Statute Revision Section of the Law Commission met and discussed the draft report on the liability of the State in tort. [1]
1956 The First Law Commission submitted its First Report, titled 'Liability of the State in Tort', recommending that the Central Government enact a law covering the field of liability of the State in tort. The report noted the law relating to the liability of the Union and the States for tortious acts was in a state of uncertainty. [1][2]
1956-03-11 The Statute Revision Section held a further meeting on the draft report; suggestions made by members were accepted and the Chairman and Sri Satyanarayana Rao were asked to finally settle the report in the light of the discussion. [1]
2021-08-17 The Madras High Court, in W.P.(MD).No.16274 of 2020, recorded that the recommendation made by the first Law Commission in 1956 had not been enacted as law, and suo motu impleaded the Union of India, the State of Tamil Nadu, and the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Law Department as respondents. [2]
Nationalisation of life insurance: Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956
Private life insurers operated life insurance business in India. In January 1956 the government first took over management of that business, and on 18 June 1956 Parliament passed the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The law created the Life Insurance Corporation of India as a state-owned monopoly, transferred all life insurance business to it, and provided compensation to the insurers whose business was taken over. The nationalisation remains in force today.
A law or decision by the government
Private life insurance companies and policyholders
1956
Benefit to the nation
Nationalisation of life insurance: Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956
Private life insurers operated life insurance business in India. In January 1956 the government first took over management of that business, and on 18 June 1956 Parliament passed the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The law created the Life Insurance Corporation of India as a state-owned monopoly, transferred all life insurance business to it, and provided compensation to the insurers whose business was taken over. The nationalisation remains in force today.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Private life insurers operated life insurance business in India. In January 1956 the government first took over management of that business, and on 18 June 1956 Parliament passed the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The law created the Life Insurance Corporation of India as a state-owned monopoly, transferred all life insurance business to it, and provided compensation to the insurers whose business was taken over. The nationalisation remains in force today.
Who did it
Private life insurance companies and policyholders
The evidence
The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 was enacted on 18 June 1956 to nationalise life insurance business in India by transferring all such business to a Corporation established for the purpose. [1][6]
An Ordinance was promulgated in January 1956, under which the management of life insurance business in India was vested in the Central Government pending nationalisation. [1][6][7]
The Act created the Life Insurance Corporation of India with capital provided entirely by the Central Government, to undertake life insurance business in India as a monopoly. [1][6]
The Act defined 'controlled business' to include all life insurance business of insurers, all business of provident societies, and all life insurance business carried on by the Central Government or a State Government, subject to certain exceptions. [1][2]
The paid-up equity capital of the Corporation, as amended, is one hundred crore rupees provided by the Central Government after due appropriation made by Parliament by law. [12]
Where it stands today
The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 stands in force. The nationalisation of life insurance business in India has not been reversed; the Life Insurance Corporation of India remains the state-owned life insurer under the Act.
What was done
The Government of India first took over management of private life insurance business by an ordinance in January 1956. Parliament then enacted the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, which established the Life Insurance Corporation of India, gave it all life insurance business in India as a monopoly, provided for compensation to insurers, and guaranteed all life insurance contracts issued by the Corporation through the Central Government. The Central Government provided the Corporation's capital.
What it meant for the country
The Act gave policyholders a Central Government guarantee on all life insurance contracts issued by the Corporation and made life insurance a state-backed monopoly, with the stated aim of providing security to policyholders and spreading insurance to rural areas.
The Act made the Life Insurance Corporation of India a monopoly over life insurance business in India and transferred all insurers' life business to it, with capital provided entirely by the Central Government. [1][6]
All contracts for assurance executed by the Corporation were guaranteed by the Central Government, giving policyholders a central government guarantee. [1][6]
The stated purpose of nationalisation was to ensure absolute security to the policyholder, to spread insurance much more widely and in particular to rural areas, and to mobilise public savings. [1][6]
Step by step
1956-01 An Ordinance was promulgated whereby, pending the passing of a Bill to nationalise life insurance business, the management of the life insurance business in India was vested in the Central Government. [1][6][7]
1956-01-09 The Government of India promulgated the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1956. [10]
1956-01-19 As the appointed day under the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956, management of life insurance business vested in the Central Government, and the government could appoint custodians to take over management. [8][10]
1956-06-18 The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament, providing for nationalisation of life insurance business by transferring all such business to a Corporation established for the purpose. [1][6]
1956-09-01 The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 came into effect, completing the process of nationalisation of life insurance business. [10]
1981-01-31 The President promulgated the Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, to amend the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 to empower the Central Government to frame rules regarding the terms and conditions of service of employees and agents of the Corporation. This was later taken forward in Amendment Act 1 of 1981. [1][6]
Private life insurance companies and policyholders
1956
States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the Fazl Ali Commission
After independence, India's internal state boundaries were a mixture of old provinces and princely states, and many people wanted the map redrawn along language and regional identity. The Government of India set up the States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953, and its report led Parliament to pass the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. From 1 November 1956, the Act created new states such as Kerala, Mysore, Maharashtra and Gujarat, merged several smaller states into larger ones, and made Bombay, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands into union territories. The Act remains the legal basis of the state boundaries it created.
A law or decision by the government
Reorganisation of states on linguistic lines
1956
States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the Fazl Ali Commission
After independence, India's internal state boundaries were a mixture of old provinces and princely states, and many people wanted the map redrawn along language and regional identity. The Government of India set up the States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953, and its report led Parliament to pass the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. From 1 November 1956, the Act created new states such as Kerala, Mysore, Maharashtra and Gujarat, merged several smaller states into larger ones, and made Bombay, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands into union territories. The Act remains the legal basis of the state boundaries it created.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
After independence, India's internal state boundaries were a mixture of old provinces and princely states, and many people wanted the map redrawn along language and regional identity. The Government of India set up the States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953, and its report led Parliament to pass the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. From 1 November 1956, the Act created new states such as Kerala, Mysore, Maharashtra and Gujarat, merged several smaller states into larger ones, and made Bombay, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands into union territories. The Act remains the legal basis of the state boundaries it created.
Who did it
Reorganisation of states on linguistic lines
The evidence
The States Reorganisation Commission was constituted in December 1953 to recommend principles and broad lines for reorganising states. [1][2]
The commission's report proposed forming the new states of Kerala, Mysore, Maharashtra and Gujarat, merging Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal with the Mahakosal area of Madhya Pradesh, merging Ajmer with Rajasthan, and merging Patiala and East Punjab States Union with Punjab. [1][2]
The report proposed that Bombay, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands would become Union territories, and that the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands would also be treated as a Union territory. [1][2]
The Bill proposed abolishing the constitutional distinction between Part A, Part B and Part C states, establishing two categories called States and Union territories, and abolishing the institution of the Rajpramukh. [2]
The Act formed a new State of Punjab comprising the existing State of Punjab and the existing State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, with those territories ceasing to form part of the earlier states. [1]
Where it stands today
The reorganisation was completed by Parliament's enactment of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which came into force on 1 November 1956. No pending proceeding, appeal or challenge is shown in the sources.
What was done
The Government of India set up the States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953. The commission reported on 30 September proposing a reorganisation plan. Parliament then enacted the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which came into force on 1 November 1956. The Act created new states and union territories, merged several existing states, and established Zonal Councils as advisory bodies.
What it meant for the country
The sources show a wholesale redrawing of India's internal map and the creation of new advisory and judicial arrangements, but they do not record what this meant for people, money or rights.
The Act created advisory Zonal Councils, with a Union minister as chairman and state chief ministers as vice-chairmen by rotation, to discuss economic and social planning, border disputes, linguistic minorities and inter-state transport. [1][5]
The reorganisation changed court and public service arrangements: the President was empowered to fix the principal seat of a new state's high court, and existing public service commissions for Bombay, Mysore, Punjab, Rajasthan and Travancore-Cochin were deemed to be the commissions for the corresponding new states. [6][8]
Agreements on irrigation, power and multipurpose projects between the central government and existing states were preserved, subject to adaptation by agreement or central government order up to 1 November 1957. [10]
Step by step
1953-12 The Government of India constituted the States Reorganisation Commission to examine the reorganisation of states. [1][2]
1956-03-16 The President referred the Bill to the Legislatures of the 12 Part A and Part B States affected by the scheme of reorganisation, as required by Article 3 of the Constitution. [2]
1956-08-31 The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was published in the Gazette of India on 31 August 1956. [2]
1956-11-01 The appointed day under the Act was 1 November 1956, on which the new states and union territories came into being. [1]
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956
In 1950 India signed an international convention at New York aimed at stopping traffic in women and girls for prostitution. To carry out that commitment, Parliament passed a national law on 30 December 1956 that defined brothels and prostitution, made procuring or inducing a woman or girl into prostitution punishable, and set up special police officers, magistrates' removal and detention powers, and protective homes. The law was later renamed the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 after amendments in 1978 and 1986, and it remains in force in that form.
A law or decision by the government
Trafficking and prostitution
1956
Mixed
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956
In 1950 India signed an international convention at New York aimed at stopping traffic in women and girls for prostitution. To carry out that commitment, Parliament passed a national law on 30 December 1956 that defined brothels and prostitution, made procuring or inducing a woman or girl into prostitution punishable, and set up special police officers, magistrates' removal and detention powers, and protective homes. The law was later renamed the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 after amendments in 1978 and 1986, and it remains in force in that form.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1950 India signed an international convention at New York aimed at stopping traffic in women and girls for prostitution. To carry out that commitment, Parliament passed a national law on 30 December 1956 that defined brothels and prostitution, made procuring or inducing a woman or girl into prostitution punishable, and set up special police officers, magistrates' removal and detention powers, and protective homes. The law was later renamed the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 after amendments in 1978 and 1986, and it remains in force in that form.
Who did it
Trafficking and prostitution
The evidence
The short title in 1956 was the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, and it extended to the whole of India. [1][2]
The Act defined a 'girl' as a female who had not completed the age of 21, and a 'woman' as a female who had completed the age of 21. [3]
The Act defined 'prostitution' as the act of a female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind. [3]
The Act was made in pursuance of the International Convention signed at New York on 9 May 1950 for the suppression of immoral traffic in women and girls. [12]
Where it stands today
The legislative process concluded with enactment on 30 December 1956 and amendments in 1978 and 1986. No pending challenge or repeal is recorded in the provided documents.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956) on 30 December 1956 in pursuance of the International Convention signed at New York on 9 May 1950. Parliament later amended it in 1978 and 1986, and the law is now known as the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
What it meant for the country
The Act created penalties for procuring and inducing women and girls into prostitution while also giving magistrates power to detain girls in protective homes, so its recorded consequences are both protective and liberty-restricting.
Section 5(1) made procuring, inducing, taking or causing a woman or girl to carry on prostitution punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than two years, and a fine of up to ₹2,000. [4]
A magistrate could order a girl apparently under 21 living or carrying on prostitution in a brothel to be removed and detained for a specified period in a protective home, with an appeal to the Sessions Judge. [1]
Special police officers of specified senior ranks were to be appointed for each area to deal with offences under the Act, assisted by subordinate police officers and a non-official advisory body of social welfare workers. [1]
Step by step
1950-05-09 India signed the International Convention at New York that later formed the basis of the Act; later litigation refers to it as the 1949 Convention. [10][12][9]
1956-12-30 Parliament enacted the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 as Act No. 104 of 1956. [12]
1978 Parliament introduced amendments to the Act through Amendment Act 46 of 1978. [10]
1986 Parliament introduced further amendments through Amendment Act 44 of 1986. [10]
1990-05-02 The Supreme Court in Vishal Jeet vs Union of India recorded that the Act passed after the 1950 signing had been changed to the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, with amendments by Acts 46 of 1978 and 44 of 1986. [10]
2026-05-29 The Supreme Court in Prajwala vs Union of India described the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act as special legislation dealing with trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation, in line with India's international law obligations under the 1949 Convention. [9]
Vivian Bose Commission of Inquiry into Dalmia-Jain affairs, 1956–62
The Dalmia-Jain group was a set of companies controlled by the Dalmia and Jain families. After inspectors reported possible offences in one of the companies, the Government of India appointed Justice Vivian Bose, a retired Supreme Court judge, to inquire into the group's affairs. The Commission reported in June 1962 that it found several irregularities and fraudulent transactions between companies controlled by the group. The report was used to file criminal charge sheets in 1964 and to refuse managing agency extensions; some follow-up tax notices were later cancelled by a court, and the Commission's findings were treated as relevant but not binding in later tax proceedings.
An official inquiry found fault
Dalmia-Jain companies and officials
1956
Mixed
Vivian Bose Commission of Inquiry into Dalmia-Jain affairs, 1956–62
The Dalmia-Jain group was a set of companies controlled by the Dalmia and Jain families. After inspectors reported possible offences in one of the companies, the Government of India appointed Justice Vivian Bose, a retired Supreme Court judge, to inquire into the group's affairs. The Commission reported in June 1962 that it found several irregularities and fraudulent transactions between companies controlled by the group. The report was used to file criminal charge sheets in 1964 and to refuse managing agency extensions; some follow-up tax notices were later cancelled by a court, and the Commission's findings were treated as relevant but not binding in later tax proceedings.
An official inquiry found fault
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A government auditor or an inquiry commission examined this and reported what went wrong. This is a report, not a court verdict.
What happened
The Dalmia-Jain group was a set of companies controlled by the Dalmia and Jain families. After inspectors reported possible offences in one of the companies, the Government of India appointed Justice Vivian Bose, a retired Supreme Court judge, to inquire into the group's affairs. The Commission reported in June 1962 that it found several irregularities and fraudulent transactions between companies controlled by the group. The report was used to file criminal charge sheets in 1964 and to refuse managing agency extensions; some follow-up tax notices were later cancelled by a court, and the Commission's findings were treated as relevant but not binding in later tax proceedings.
Who did it
Dalmia-Jain companies and officials
The evidence
The Government of India appointed Justice Vivian Bose, a retired Supreme Court judge, on 11 December 1956 to inquire into the affairs of certain Dalmia-Jain group companies. [1]
The Commission reported in June 1962 that it found several irregularities and fraudulent transactions between companies controlled by the Dalmia-Jain group. [1]
Charge-sheets filed in May 1964 alleged that V.H. Dalmia and others were parties to a criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust of the assets of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd, with amounts running into crores of rupees. [3][4][6]
The Company Law Board refused to extend the managing agency of Govan Brothers for Rampur Distillery, relying on the Commission's findings about V.H. Dalmia. [3][4][6]
The Delhi High Court cancelled income-tax reassessment notices issued to R. Dalmia based on the Commission's report because the sanction was invalid. [5]
Where it stands today
Criminal charge sheets were filed in the Court of the District Magistrate, Delhi, against V.H. Dalmia and 23 others; the sources do not record the outcome of those proceedings. The Company Law Board's refusal of managing agency extension was challenged; the Supreme Court directed the Board to dispose of the Rampur Company's application within one month. The Delhi High Court cancelled the income-tax reassessment notices issued to R. Dalmia.
What was done
The Government of India appointed Justice Vivian Bose on 11 December 1956 to inquire into the affairs of certain Dalmia-Jain group companies. The Commission submitted its report in June 1962, finding several irregularities and fraudulent transactions between companies controlled by the group. The report was then used as the basis for criminal charge sheets and regulatory refusals.
What it meant for the country
The record shows both findings of wrongdoing and limits on follow-up action: the Commission found fraudulent transactions and charges alleged breach of trust of crores, but courts later cancelled some tax notices and a Company Law Board refusal.
The Commission's report recorded that criminal breach of trust was committed in respect of amounts running into crores of rupees of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd, as described in the charge sheet. [6]
The Company Law Board refused managing agency extensions for Rampur Distillery and similar Dalmia group companies, relying on the Commission's findings. [3][4][6]
The Delhi High Court cancelled six income-tax reassessment notices issued to R. Dalmia on the basis of the Commission's report, because the sanction was given without proper authority. [5]
The Settlement Commission treated Rs 7 lakh paid to Shriyans Prasad Jain as taxable, relying on the Commission's report. [1]
Step by step
1946-07-09 Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd was floated as a public limited company. [11]
1952-11-27 Inspectors appointed under the Indian Companies Act 1913 submitted their report on Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd, finding certain officers guilty of criminal offences in relation to the company. [8][12]
1953-11-18 The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies lodged a first information report (police complaint) after the matter was referred to the Public Prosecutor. [8]
1956-12-11 The Government of India appointed Justice Vivian Bose, a retired Supreme Court judge, as a Commission of Inquiry to look into the affairs of certain companies controlled by the Dalmia-Jain group. [1]
1962-06 The Commission submitted its report, finding several irregularities and fraudulent transactions by and between companies controlled by the Dalmia-Jain group, including Dalmia Cement and Paper Marketing Company Ltd. [1]
1964-05 Charge-sheets were filed against various persons including V.H. Dalmia under sections 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust of funds and assets of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd, forgery and falsification of accounts. [3][4][6]
1967-01-23 The Company Law Board refused to approve extension of the managing agency of Govan Brothers for Rampur Distillery, relying on the Vivian Bose Commission report. [3][4]
1967-06-06 The Company Law Board informed Rampur Distillery that its request for extension was rejected. [4]
1970-03-24 The Delhi High Court quashed — cancelled — six income-tax reassessment notices issued to R. Dalmia under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the sanction was granted by a member without proper allocation of work. [5]
1979-03-16 The Settlement Commission passed an order in the case of Shriyans Prasad Jain, holding that a substantial portion of Rs 7 lakh paid by Dalmia Cement and Paper Marketing Company Ltd should be treated as taxable, relying on the Vivian Bose Commission report. [1]
The Mundhra affair: Chagla Commission and T.T. Krishnamachari's resignation, 1957–58
In the 1950s, the state-owned Life Insurance Corporation of India bought shares in companies promoted by businessman Haridas Mundhra. In 1957, Parliament heard allegations that the finance ministry had pressed LIC to buy worthless Mundhra shares for ₹1.24 crore. The government ordered an inquiry into the purchase, known as the Mundhra Inquiry. Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari resigned as a result. Years later, the Supreme Court found Haridas Mundhra personally liable to compensate LIC for abandoning a share purchase.
Closed without a verdict
LIC investment in Mundhra companies
1957
Harm to the nation
The Mundhra affair: Chagla Commission and T.T. Krishnamachari's resignation, 1957–58
In the 1950s, the state-owned Life Insurance Corporation of India bought shares in companies promoted by businessman Haridas Mundhra. In 1957, Parliament heard allegations that the finance ministry had pressed LIC to buy worthless Mundhra shares for ₹1.24 crore. The government ordered an inquiry into the purchase, known as the Mundhra Inquiry. Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari resigned as a result. Years later, the Supreme Court found Haridas Mundhra personally liable to compensate LIC for abandoning a share purchase.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
In the 1950s, the state-owned Life Insurance Corporation of India bought shares in companies promoted by businessman Haridas Mundhra. In 1957, Parliament heard allegations that the finance ministry had pressed LIC to buy worthless Mundhra shares for ₹1.24 crore. The government ordered an inquiry into the purchase, known as the Mundhra Inquiry. Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari resigned as a result. Years later, the Supreme Court found Haridas Mundhra personally liable to compensate LIC for abandoning a share purchase.
Who did it
LIC investment in Mundhra companies
The evidence
Haridas Mundhra was chairman of British India Corporation Ltd, Kanpur, a joint stock company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. [5]
The Law Commission's 1962 report names the Mundhra Inquiry as the inquiry that received the widest publicity under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. [13]
LIC took court action to remove directors of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd for mismanagement and to put the company under an Advisory Board. [2]
The Allahabad High Court found that the Delhi Special Police Establishment had valid jurisdiction to investigate offences in Uttar Pradesh and that its report could be the basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance. [5]
Where it stands today
The Commission of Inquiry and the Finance Minister's resignation concluded in 1957-58. The Supreme Court appeals, Nos. 296 and 299 of 1961, were disposed of with Haridas Mundhra held liable to compensate LIC. No pending proceedings are shown in the sources. The criminal process begun in December 1957 is not shown in these sources to have resulted in a conviction.
What was done
The government appointed a commission of inquiry into the LIC's purchase of shares in Mundhra companies. The Law Commission's 1962 report records that this inquiry led to the resignation of the then Finance Minister. In later company proceedings, the Supreme Court held Haridas Mundhra liable to pay compensation to LIC for abandoning a share purchase deal.
What it meant for the country
The LIC's investment of ₹1.24 crore in Mundhra companies led to a Finance Minister's resignation and a Supreme Court finding that Haridas Mundhra must compensate the insurer.
LIC paid ₹1.24 crore for shares in Mundhra companies that were later described as worthless; this figure was put before Parliament in 1957, as reported by the Scribd document. [12]
The inquiry led to the resignation of the then Finance Minister, T.T. Krishnamachari, as recorded by the Law Commission and as reported by the Scribd document. [13][12]
The Supreme Court held Haridas Mundhra liable to pay compensation to LIC for abandoning a share purchase deal, and his appeal substantially failed. [1]
In Richardson and Cruddas Ltd., the board of directors were removed on the ground of mismanagement and an Advisory Board was constituted by court order. [2]
A criminal investigation against Haridas Mundhra was opened in December 1957 by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, and the High Court allowed the Magistrate to take cognizance of the report. [5]
Step by step
1956-04 Haridas Mundhra was elected chairman of the board of directors of British India Corporation Ltd. [1][5]
1957 Parliament was told that LIC, under pressure from the finance ministry, had bought shares in companies promoted by Haridas Mundhra for ₹1.24 crore, which were alleged to be worthless. This is as reported by the Scribd document. [12]
1957-03-04 Haridas Mundhra wrote to the company authorising a debit; he was later held mainly responsible for abandoning the share purchase deal instead of enforcing it. [1]
1957-09-07 By a deed of revocation, Haridas Mundhra became entitled to exercise an option to purchase 51 per cent of the remaining shares in Champarun Sugar Co. Ltd, and he paid for and obtained a transfer of 49 per cent of the shares. [11]
1957-12-21 The Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Delhi Special Police Establishment lodged a report against Haridas Mundhra. [5]
1958-08-01 In Richardson and Cruddas Ltd., the court constituted an Advisory Board after the board of directors had been removed on the ground of mismanagement. [2]
1958-08-05 The Allahabad High Court held that the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was a competent police report and that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the case. [5]
1961 In appeals before the Supreme Court, Appeal No. 299 of 1961 succeeded as regards Haridas Mundhra, and Appeal No. 296 of 1961 brought by Haridas Mundhra and Tulsidas Mundhra substantially failed. The court held Haridas Mundhra liable to pay compensation to the Corporation for abandoning the share purchase deal. [1]
1962-12 The Law Commission's Twenty-Fourth Report recorded that the Mundhra Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, led to the resignation of the then Finance Minister. [13]
The Mundhra affair concerned the Life Insurance Corporation of India's dealings with companies controlled by Haridas Mundhra in the late 1950s. The state-owned Life Insurance Corporation took Haridas Mundhra and others to court over the running of British India Corporation Limited, and Haridas Mundhra was charged with cheating and forgery in 1958; a later court record refers to his conviction. The available record shows court findings of mismanagement and liability against him.
Found guilty by a court
Nehru government; T.T. Krishnamachari (Finance Minister)
1957
Harm to the nation
The Mundhra affair: LIC's investment, 1957–58
The Mundhra affair concerned the Life Insurance Corporation of India's dealings with companies controlled by Haridas Mundhra in the late 1950s. The state-owned Life Insurance Corporation took Haridas Mundhra and others to court over the running of British India Corporation Limited, and Haridas Mundhra was charged with cheating and forgery in 1958; a later court record refers to his conviction. The available record shows court findings of mismanagement and liability against him.
Found guilty by a court
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court held a trial and found the person guilty.
What happened
The Mundhra affair concerned the Life Insurance Corporation of India's dealings with companies controlled by Haridas Mundhra in the late 1950s. The state-owned Life Insurance Corporation took Haridas Mundhra and others to court over the running of British India Corporation Limited, and Haridas Mundhra was charged with cheating and forgery in 1958; a later court record refers to his conviction. The available record shows court findings of mismanagement and liability against him.
Who did it
Nehru government; T.T. Krishnamachari (Finance Minister)
The evidence
The Life Insurance Corporation established before the court that the affairs of British India Corporation Limited were being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation and its shareholders. [1]
The former board of British India Corporation Limited was guilty of mismanagement between 1956 and 1958; directors other than Haridas Mundhra could not be ordered to pay compensation. [1]
Haridas Mundhra was held liable to pay compensation to the Corporation for the loss incurred in the abandonment of the Samastipur share deal. [1]
The court said that, in view of his conviction, Haridas Mundhra was not capable of being appointed a director of a company under section 274 of the Companies Act. [1]
Haridas Mundhra was charged under sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on 22 March 1958. [4]
Where it stands today
The court proceedings against Haridas Mundhra concluded with the findings and conviction referred to in the company judgment; Richardson and Cruddas Ltd was under a court-appointed Special Officer from 1958. The criminal challenge was before the Allahabad High Court in 1958, and the company petitions were before the Calcutta High Court and the court deciding the Life Insurance Corporation appeal.
What was done
The Life Insurance Corporation of India used company-law proceedings to obtain findings against the British India Corporation board and against Haridas Mundhra. The Calcutta High Court removed the board and managing agents of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd and placed the company under a court-appointed Special Officer. Haridas Mundhra was charged with cheating and forgery, and a court record refers to his conviction.
What it meant for the country
The court record shows findings of mismanagement and liability against Haridas Mundhra, his criminal charge and conviction, and court control of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd.
The former board of British India Corporation was found guilty of mismanagement between 1956 and 1958, and Haridas Mundhra was held liable to compensate the Corporation for loss on the Samastipur share deal. [1]
Haridas Mundhra was charged with cheating and forgery-related offences on 22 March 1958, and the record refers to his conviction. [4][1]
Richardson and Cruddas Ltd, a company involved in the litigation, had its board and managing agents removed and was placed under a court-appointed Special Officer. [3]
Step by step
1956-04 Haridas Mundhra was elected chairman of the board of British India Corporation Limited, and his brother Tulsi Das Mundhra was elected a director. [1]
1957-02-06 A court exhibit recorded finance by the Corporation to the company at Rs 44,74,236 on this date, rising to Rs 52,15,000 by 2 July 1957. [1]
1957-03-02 A contract about the purchase of Samastipur shares involved Jamunadas Kayan, Haridas Mundhra and others; on 4 March 1957 Haridas Mundhra wrote to the company authorising a debit. [1]
1957-07-02 The Corporation's finance to the company stood at Rs 52,15,000. [1]
1957-12-20 The State Bank of India, Kanpur, had instituted a suit against the Corporation for recovery of debts, and the Kanpur civil court appointed an officer on that date. [1]
1957-12-21 The Managing Director of British India Corporation lodged a report with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Delhi Special Police Establishment. [4]
1958-03-22 A charge-sheet was filed under sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of Sri Maharaj Singh. [4]
1958-04-23 The Calcutta High Court confirmed the appointment of a Special Officer for Richardson and Cruddas Ltd, removed all members of the board and managing agents, and directed the Special Officer to manage the company. [3]
1958-06-03 The Special Magistrate rejected Haridas Mundhra's objections to the investigation and trial. [4]
1958-08-05 The Allahabad High Court delivered its order in Hari Das Mundhra vs The State, in which Haridas Mundhra challenged the validity of the trial and investigation. [4]
1958-08-08 The Calcutta High Court ordered the constitution of an advisory board to assist the Special Officer of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. [3]
Nehru government; T.T. Krishnamachari (Finance Minister)
1958
Harm to the nation
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is a law that gives soldiers special powers in areas the government declares 'disturbed'. Parliament first passed it for Assam and Manipur on 22 May 1958, replacing an earlier ordinance. In 1972 it was amended to cover seven northeastern states and to let the central government also declare disturbed areas. The law allows soldiers to fire, even causing death, to destroy shelters, and to arrest and search without warrants. It also says no legal case can be brought against them without the central government's prior sanction. The Act remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Naga Hills and later other disturbed areas
1958
Harm to the nation
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is a law that gives soldiers special powers in areas the government declares 'disturbed'. Parliament first passed it for Assam and Manipur on 22 May 1958, replacing an earlier ordinance. In 1972 it was amended to cover seven northeastern states and to let the central government also declare disturbed areas. The law allows soldiers to fire, even causing death, to destroy shelters, and to arrest and search without warrants. It also says no legal case can be brought against them without the central government's prior sanction. The Act remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is a law that gives soldiers special powers in areas the government declares 'disturbed'. Parliament first passed it for Assam and Manipur on 22 May 1958, replacing an earlier ordinance. In 1972 it was amended to cover seven northeastern states and to let the central government also declare disturbed areas. The law allows soldiers to fire, even causing death, to destroy shelters, and to arrest and search without warrants. It also says no legal case can be brought against them without the central government's prior sanction. The Act remains in force.
Who did it
Naga Hills and later other disturbed areas
The evidence
The Act is called the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 and extends to Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. [1][5]
The Act defines 'armed forces' as military forces and air forces operating as land forces, and 'disturbed area' as an area declared by notification under section 3. [1][11]
Section 3 allows the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory, or the Central Government to declare an area disturbed if it is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that use of armed forces in aid of civil power is necessary. [1]
Section 4 gives special powers to fire, destroy arms dumps or shelters, arrest without warrant, and enter and search without warrant. [1][6]
Section 6 requires previous sanction of the Central Government for any prosecution, suit or legal proceeding against a person for anything done under the Act. [1][9]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force. The Supreme Court heard challenges to its validity in Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v Union of India, but the provided text does not state the outcome. No pending proceedings are identified in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 on 22 May 1958, replacing the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance, 1958. In 1972 Parliament amended it to extend to Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura and to give the Central Government power to declare disturbed areas. The Act remains in force.
What it meant for the country
The Act is harmful on the record because it authorises soldiers to use lethal force and arrest without warrant in disturbed areas while requiring central government sanction for any prosecution.
The Act permits any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or equivalent to fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against persons contravening certain orders in a disturbed area. [1][6][10]
The Act permits arrest without warrant and entry and search without warrant in a disturbed area. [1][6]
No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Central Government against any person for anything done under the Act. [1][9]
Step by step
1958-05-22 The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 came into force, replacing the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance, 1958; anything done under the Ordinance was deemed done under the Act. [3][4]
2015-02-25 In the Lok Sabha, Thokchom Meinya raised the issue of repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. [7]
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958: origins and parliamentary record
During the Naga insurgency, Parliament gave the armed forces special powers in Assam and Manipur: in areas declared 'disturbed', they could fire even to the point of killing, arrest without a warrant and search premises without a warrant, and they could not be prosecuted without the central government's prior sanction. The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 replaced an ordinance of the same name and was treated as having started on 22 May 1958. The law, now called the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, remains in force and extends to seven north-eastern states.
A law or decision by the government
Armed forces powers in Assam and Naga Hills
1958
Harm to the nation
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958: origins and parliamentary record
During the Naga insurgency, Parliament gave the armed forces special powers in Assam and Manipur: in areas declared 'disturbed', they could fire even to the point of killing, arrest without a warrant and search premises without a warrant, and they could not be prosecuted without the central government's prior sanction. The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 replaced an ordinance of the same name and was treated as having started on 22 May 1958. The law, now called the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, remains in force and extends to seven north-eastern states.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
During the Naga insurgency, Parliament gave the armed forces special powers in Assam and Manipur: in areas declared 'disturbed', they could fire even to the point of killing, arrest without a warrant and search premises without a warrant, and they could not be prosecuted without the central government's prior sanction. The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 replaced an ordinance of the same name and was treated as having started on 22 May 1958. The law, now called the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, remains in force and extends to seven north-eastern states.
Who did it
Armed forces powers in Assam and Naga Hills
The evidence
The Act as originally enacted was called the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 and extended to the whole of Assam and the Union Territory of Manipur. [3][4]
The Act repealed the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance, 1958, and anything done under the Ordinance was deemed done under the Act as if the Act had commenced on 22 May 1958. [3][4]
The current Act extends to Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. [1][2][5]
In a disturbed area, armed forces personnel may fire or use force even to the causing of death, destroy arms dumps and hide-outs, arrest without warrant, and enter and search without warrant. [1][6]
No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding may be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Central Government for anything done under the Act. [1][12]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force. A Lok Sabha debate on repealing it was raised on 25 February 2015, but the sources do not record any repeal.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958, replacing the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance, 1958. The Act empowered armed forces personnel in disturbed areas to use force even to the causing of death, arrest without warrant, enter and search without warrant, and barred any prosecution except with the Central Government's previous sanction. The Act was later extended to seven states.
What it meant for the country
The Act on its face permits the use of force 'even to the causing of death' and bars any prosecution without the Central Government's prior sanction, curtailing legal accountability for such force.
Armed forces personnel may 'fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death' against a person contravening certain orders in a disturbed area. [1][6]
No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding may be instituted against any person for anything done under the Act except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. [1][12]
A person arrested under the Act must be made over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay. [1]
Step by step
1957-11-29 Parliament enacted the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area Act, 1957, forming a new administrative unit in Assam comprising the Naga Hills District and the Tuensang Frontier Division, to be administered by the Governor as the agent of the President. [7][9]
1958 The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 was enacted, extending to the whole of Assam and the Union Territory of Manipur, and repealing the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance, 1958. [3][4]
1958-05-22 The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 is deemed to have commenced on this date; anything done under the repealed Ordinance is deemed to have been done under the Act. [3][4]
2015-02-25 In the Lok Sabha, Thokchom Meinya (Inner Manipur) raised the issue of repealing the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. [11]
India's main law on guns and ammunition is the Arms Act, 1959. It says no one may acquire, possess, carry, make, sell, import or export firearms or ammunition without a licence, and it sets out punishments for doing so. Parliament passed the Act in 1959, the Central Government issued detailed Arms Rules in 2016, and Parliament tightened penalties in 2019. The Act remains in force; the court cases cited under it ended in four findings of not guilty and one upheld conviction.
A law or decision by the government
Firearms regulation
1959
Arms Act, 1959
India's main law on guns and ammunition is the Arms Act, 1959. It says no one may acquire, possess, carry, make, sell, import or export firearms or ammunition without a licence, and it sets out punishments for doing so. Parliament passed the Act in 1959, the Central Government issued detailed Arms Rules in 2016, and Parliament tightened penalties in 2019. The Act remains in force; the court cases cited under it ended in four findings of not guilty and one upheld conviction.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
India's main law on guns and ammunition is the Arms Act, 1959. It says no one may acquire, possess, carry, make, sell, import or export firearms or ammunition without a licence, and it sets out punishments for doing so. Parliament passed the Act in 1959, the Central Government issued detailed Arms Rules in 2016, and Parliament tightened penalties in 2019. The Act remains in force; the court cases cited under it ended in four findings of not guilty and one upheld conviction.
Who did it
Firearms regulation
The evidence
The Act defines 'arms' as articles designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence, including firearms, sharp-edged and other deadly weapons, but excluding domestic or agricultural tools such as a lathi or an ordinary walking stick and toys. [1]
'Firearms' means arms designed or adapted to discharge a projectile by explosive or other energy, and includes artillery, hand-grenades, riot-pistols, parts and machinery for manufacturing firearms. [1]
No person shall acquire, have in possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds a licence issued under the Act and rules. [4]
No person shall manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove any firearms or prescribed arms or ammunition without a licence. [6]
A licence under section 3 continues for five years unless revoked earlier and is renewable. [5]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force. No challenge to the Act is recorded in the sources. The cited prosecutions concluded: State vs Chand (found not guilty on 21 July 2012 [16]); Sonu @ Raja vs State (conviction under Sections 25 and 27 upheld on 15 September 2020 [15]); State vs Krishna (found not guilty on 23 December 2021 [18]); State vs Heera @ Deepak (found not guilty on 20 April 2022 [13]); State vs Shashank Kumar (found not guilty on 26 April 2022 [17]).
What was done
Parliament enacted the Arms Act, 1959, which consolidated and amended the law on arms and ammunition and repealed the Indian Arms Act, 1878. The Central Government made the Arms Rules, 2016, and Parliament passed the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019, which raised penalties and added new offences.
What it meant for the country
The documents establish a stricter licensing and penalty regime but provide no figures on deaths, detentions, or rights affected, so the national consequences are unclear.
The 2019 amendment increased the minimum imprisonment for certain arms offences from three years to seven years, and up to life, raising the possible prison time for offenders. [9]
The 2019 amendment created a new offence of celebratory gunfire, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment or a fine of up to ₹1 lakh. [9]
The 2016 Rules imposed a mandatory safety training course on arms licence applicants, adding a condition to lawful gun ownership. [3]
The Act limits a person to two firearms, requiring excess firearms to be deposited within one year of the 2019 amendment. [4]
Step by step
1959 Parliament enacted the Arms Act, 1959 (No. 54 of 1959) to consolidate and amend the law relating to arms and ammunition. [12][8]
1959 The Act repealed the Indian Arms Act, 1878. [10]
2012-07-21 A Delhi trial court found Chand not guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act, holding there was no valid sanction under Section 39 and no proof the seized object was a firearm or ammunition. [16]
2016-07-15 The Central Government published the Arms Rules, 2016, superseding the Arms Rules, 1962. [3]
2019 Parliament enacted the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019, inserting a definition of electronic licence, raising minimum sentences, and adding offences for organised crime syndicates and celebratory gunfire. [9]
2020-09-15 The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Sonu @ Raja under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, holding a country-made pistol was a firearm and a live cartridge was ammunition. [15]
2021-12-23 A Delhi trial court found Krishna not guilty under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. [18]
2022-04-20 A Delhi trial court found Heera @ Deepak not guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act. [13]
2022-04-26 A Delhi trial court found Shashank Kumar not guilty under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, citing loopholes in the investigation and inconsistencies in evidence. [17]
Dismissal of the first Communist government in Kerala under Article 356
A provision of the Constitution lets the President take over a state's government if satisfied it cannot be run according to the Constitution. A Supreme Court judgment records that on 31 July 1959 the President issued a proclamation under this provision, while a land reform Bill passed by Kerala's Communist government was awaiting the President's assent. The Court later held that the Bill did not lapse because of the Assembly's dissolution; the dismissal stands as a historical fact.
Closed without a verdict
Communist government of Kerala led by E.M.S. Namboodiripad
1959
Dismissal of the first Communist government in Kerala under Article 356
A provision of the Constitution lets the President take over a state's government if satisfied it cannot be run according to the Constitution. A Supreme Court judgment records that on 31 July 1959 the President issued a proclamation under this provision, while a land reform Bill passed by Kerala's Communist government was awaiting the President's assent. The Court later held that the Bill did not lapse because of the Assembly's dissolution; the dismissal stands as a historical fact.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
A provision of the Constitution lets the President take over a state's government if satisfied it cannot be run according to the Constitution. A Supreme Court judgment records that on 31 July 1959 the President issued a proclamation under this provision, while a land reform Bill passed by Kerala's Communist government was awaiting the President's assent. The Court later held that the Bill did not lapse because of the Assembly's dissolution; the dismissal stands as a historical fact.
Who did it
Communist government of Kerala led by E.M.S. Namboodiripad
The evidence
Article 356(1) of the Constitution allows the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor or otherwise, if satisfied that the state government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution, to assume functions of the state government and declare that the state legislature's powers shall be exercisable by Parliament. [6][10]
The Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill was introduced on 21 December 1957 by the Communist Government then in power. [11]
The Bill was passed on 10 June 1959 and reserved by the Governor for the President's assent under Article 200. [11]
On 31 July 1959, the President issued a proclamation under Article 356. [11]
The Supreme Court held that a Bill pending the Governor's or President's assent does not lapse on the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly. [11]
Where it stands today
The Supreme Court's judgment in Purushothaman Nambudiri vs The State of Kerala (5 December 1961) concluded the question of whether the Bill lapsed. The dismissal itself stands as a historical fact; no challenge to the proclamation is documented in the sources.
What was done
The President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 on 31 July 1959, as recorded in a Supreme Court judgment. At the time, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill, introduced by the Communist government on 21 December 1957 and passed on 10 June 1959, was pending the President's assent.
What it meant for the country
The sources do not document the consequences of the dismissal for the people or institutions of Kerala; the only documented consequence is that the land reform Bill survived the Assembly's dissolution.
The Supreme Court's holding meant the Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill, passed by the Communist government, did not lapse when the Assembly was dissolved. [11]
Step by step
1957-12-21 The Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill was introduced in the Kerala Legislative Assembly by the Communist Government then in power. [11]
1959-06-10 The Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill was passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly and reserved by the Governor for the President's assent under Article 200 of the Constitution. [11]
1959-07-31 The President issued a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution. [11]
1961-12-05 The Supreme Court held that a Bill pending the Governor's or President's assent does not lapse on the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly. [11]
Communist government of Kerala led by E.M.S. Namboodiripad
1959
Mixed
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1961
Naval Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's lover. A Bombay sessions jury first found him not guilty, but the Bombay High Court overturned that verdict and convicted him of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. On the same day the High Court gave its judgment, the Governor of Bombay, Shri Prakasa, used his constitutional power to suspend the sentence while Nanavati appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Governor could not suspend the sentence once the matter was before the Supreme Court, and the order was invalid. The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction. The case is linked to the later abolition of jury trials in India.
Found guilty by a court
Governor's clemency and jury trial
1959
Mixed
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1961
Naval Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's lover. A Bombay sessions jury first found him not guilty, but the Bombay High Court overturned that verdict and convicted him of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. On the same day the High Court gave its judgment, the Governor of Bombay, Shri Prakasa, used his constitutional power to suspend the sentence while Nanavati appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Governor could not suspend the sentence once the matter was before the Supreme Court, and the order was invalid. The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction. The case is linked to the later abolition of jury trials in India.
Found guilty by a court
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court held a trial and found the person guilty.
What happened
Naval Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's lover. A Bombay sessions jury first found him not guilty, but the Bombay High Court overturned that verdict and convicted him of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. On the same day the High Court gave its judgment, the Governor of Bombay, Shri Prakasa, used his constitutional power to suspend the sentence while Nanavati appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Governor could not suspend the sentence once the matter was before the Supreme Court, and the order was invalid. The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction. The case is linked to the later abolition of jury trials in India.
Who did it
Governor's clemency and jury trial
The evidence
Article 161 of the Constitution gives the Governor of a State the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of an offence against a law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends. [1][3]
The Governor's order of 11 March 1960 read: 'In exercise of the powers conferred on me by Article 161 of the Constitution of India, I, Shri Prakasa, Governor of Bombay, am pleased hereby to suspend the sentence passed by the High Court of Bombay on Commander K.M. Nanavati until the appeal intended to be filed by him in the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence is disposed of and subject meanwhile to the condition that he shall be detained in the Naval Jail custody.' [2][4]
The Bombay High Court on 30 March 1960 held that the Governor's order was not invalid and that the warrant should not be reissued until the Supreme Court appeal was disposed of unless the order was cancelled or withdrawn. [4]
The Supreme Court held that the Governor's power under Article 161 is subject to the rules made by the Supreme Court under Article 145, and that once an appeal is filed the Governor cannot suspend the sentence; if he does, the order is invalid. [6][2]
The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's conviction of Nanavati for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. [9]
Where it stands today
The Supreme Court appeal concluded on 5 September 1960 with the conviction upheld and the Governor's suspension order held invalid. No further proceedings are shown in the sources. As reported by a secondary source, Nanavati was pardoned by the Governor of Maharashtra in 1964.
What was done
The Governor of Bombay, Shri Prakasa, passed an order on 11 March 1960 under Article 161 suspending Nanavati's life sentence until his Supreme Court appeal was decided, on condition that he be detained in naval jail custody. The Bombay High Court initially upheld that order on 30 March 1960. The Supreme Court, on 5 September 1960, held the Governor's suspension order invalid once the appeal was before the Supreme Court, and upheld Nanavati's murder conviction.
What it meant for the country
The case ended with Nanavati's murder conviction upheld and the Governor's suspension order invalidated, and it is linked to the later abolition of jury trials in India.
Jury trials were abolished in India by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; commentators link the public frenzy around the Nanavati trial to this abolition. [9]
Nanavati's murder conviction and life sentence were upheld by the Supreme Court, so he remained convicted of murder. [9]
The Supreme Court's ruling limited the Governor's power to suspend a sentence once an appeal was before the Supreme Court, preserving the court's control over its own proceedings. [2][6][10]
Step by step
1959 Nanavati was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja. A jury initially found him not guilty, but the Bombay High Court later set aside the jury verdict and convicted him of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. [12][9]
1960-03-11 The Bombay High Court pronounced its judgment convicting Nanavati. On the same day, Governor Shri Prakasa passed an order under Article 161 suspending the sentence until the Supreme Court appeal was disposed of, on condition that Nanavati be detained in Naval Jail custody. [2][8][4]
1960-03-30 A special bench of the Bombay High Court held that the Governor's order was not invalid and not unconstitutional, and that the warrant should not be reissued until the Supreme Court appeal was disposed of unless the order was cancelled or withdrawn. [4]
1960-04-20 Nanavati filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, with an application seeking exemption from the requirement under Order XXI rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules that a sentenced petitioner surrender before the petition is heard. [8]
1960-09-05 The Supreme Court held that the Governor's power under Article 161 to suspend a sentence could not be exercised once the matter was before the Supreme Court; the Governor's order was invalid to that extent. The Court also upheld the requirement that a petitioner sentenced to imprisonment surrender before the petition is heard. The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's conviction of Nanavati for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. [2][6][10][9]
1964 As reported by a legal commentary, Nanavati was pardoned by the Governor of Maharashtra. [9]
Berubari Union case and Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960
Berubari Union No. 12 was a small area of 8.75 square miles in Jalpaiguri district, West Bengal, on the border between India and what was then East Pakistan; both countries claimed it. In 1958, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, Nehru and Noon, signed an agreement to divide it roughly half and half and to exchange certain enclaves. The President of India asked the Supreme Court whether handing over Indian territory to Pakistan could be done without changing the Constitution. The Court said in March 1960 that it required a constitutional amendment. Parliament then passed the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act in December 1960 to allow the transfer. In 1971 the Supreme Court rejected a challenge by residents, upheld the amendment, and ruled that no compensation was payable for their homes and land.
A law or decision by the government
Berubari Union territory and Indo-Pakistan border
1960
Harm to the nation
Berubari Union case and Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960
Berubari Union No. 12 was a small area of 8.75 square miles in Jalpaiguri district, West Bengal, on the border between India and what was then East Pakistan; both countries claimed it. In 1958, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, Nehru and Noon, signed an agreement to divide it roughly half and half and to exchange certain enclaves. The President of India asked the Supreme Court whether handing over Indian territory to Pakistan could be done without changing the Constitution. The Court said in March 1960 that it required a constitutional amendment. Parliament then passed the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act in December 1960 to allow the transfer. In 1971 the Supreme Court rejected a challenge by residents, upheld the amendment, and ruled that no compensation was payable for their homes and land.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Berubari Union No. 12 was a small area of 8.75 square miles in Jalpaiguri district, West Bengal, on the border between India and what was then East Pakistan; both countries claimed it. In 1958, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, Nehru and Noon, signed an agreement to divide it roughly half and half and to exchange certain enclaves. The President of India asked the Supreme Court whether handing over Indian territory to Pakistan could be done without changing the Constitution. The Court said in March 1960 that it required a constitutional amendment. Parliament then passed the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act in December 1960 to allow the transfer. In 1971 the Supreme Court rejected a challenge by residents, upheld the amendment, and ruled that no compensation was payable for their homes and land.
Who did it
Berubari Union territory and Indo-Pakistan border
The evidence
Berubari Union, situated in the district of Jalpaiguri, continued to be in the possession of the Indian Union; sometime in 1952 Pakistan claimed it as having gone to it under the Radcliffe Award, and India claimed it for herself. [10]
Item 3 of the 10 September 1958 agreement provided that Berubari Union No. 12 would be divided horizontally, half the area going to Pakistan, the other half adjacent to India being retained by India; item 10 provided for exchange of old Cooch-Behar enclaves in Pakistan and Pakistan enclaves in India without claim to compensation for extra area going to Pakistan. [2][4]
The Supreme Court in its advisory opinion said the question relating to Berubari must be considered on the basis that it involves cession of a part of India's territory to Pakistan, and this applies with greater force to the agreement relating to the exchange of the enclaves. [2]
The Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960 defined 'Indo-Pakistan agreements' as the Agreements dated 10 September 1958, 23 October 1959 and 11 January 1960, and defined 'appointed day' as the date the Central Government would notify in the Official Gazette for transfer of territories after demarcation. [4][5]
The 1971 Supreme Court decision states that the Ninth Amendment Act was enacted on 28 December 1960 pursuant to the advisory opinion, and held there could be no impediment in the way of ceding part of Berubari Union No. 12 to Pakistan. [3]
Where it stands today
The matter is concluded. The Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960 is in force, and the Supreme Court upheld it in Union of India v Sudhansu Mazumdar (29 March 1971). No appeal is pending in the record.
What was done
The Government of India, through the Indo-Pakistan Agreement of 10 September 1958, agreed to divide Berubari Union half and half and to exchange Cooch-Behar enclaves without compensation for extra area going to Pakistan. President Rajendra Prasad referred the question of implementation to the Supreme Court. The Court advised that a constitutional amendment was necessary. Parliament then enacted the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960, which changed the First Schedule to the Constitution to exclude the territories being transferred from Assam, Punjab, West Bengal and Tripura, with transfer to take effect on a date the Central Government would notify after demarcation.
What it meant for the country
The settlement cost India part of its territory — about half of the 8.75-square-mile Berubari Union — affected 5,000 to 6,000 residents, and the Supreme Court in 1971 ruled they were not entitled to compensation for their homes and land.
The total area of Berubari Union was 8.75 square miles, of which approximately half was to go to Pakistan; across the wider Nehru-Noon agreement the total area going to Pakistan was 4.8 square miles while 42.4 square miles came to India. [10]
The total population of Berubari Union was 10,000 to 12,000, of whom approximately 5,000 to 6,000 persons were affected by the agreement. [10]
The Supreme Court in 1971 held the transfer of territory was not compulsory acquisition under Article 31(2) of the Constitution, so the inhabitants' claim to compensation for their household property, ancestral homes and cultivated lands in Berubari Union No. 12 was rejected. [3]
The First Schedule to the Constitution was amended so that the transferred territories were excluded from the State of Assam, the State of Punjab, the State of West Bengal and the Union Territory of Tripura. [4][7]
Step by step
1958-09-10 The Governments of India and Pakistan signed the Indo-Pakistan Agreement (the Nehru-Noon agreement), providing for Berubari Union No. 12 to be divided half and half and for exchange of Cooch-Behar enclaves. [2][3][10][11][12]
1959 President Rajendra Prasad referred the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, asking whether implementation of the agreement required a law of Parliament relatable to Article 3, a suitable amendment of the Constitution under Article 368, or both. [2][4]
1960-03-14 The Supreme Court delivered its advisory opinion: the agreement involved cession of a part of India's territory to Pakistan, and implementation required alteration of Article 1 and the relevant part of the First Schedule to the Constitution, which could be made only under Article 368; a law under Article 3 was not sufficient. [3][2]
1960-12-28 The Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960 commenced; it amended the First Schedule to the Constitution to exclude the transferred territories from the State of Assam, the State of Punjab, the State of West Bengal and the Union Territory of Tripura. [3][4][7]
1971-03-29 In Union of India v Sudhansu Mazumdar, the Supreme Court held that the Ninth Amendment Act had been passed by Parliament in the manner indicated in the advisory opinion, and that cession of territory to a foreign State is not acquisition within the meaning of Article 31(2) of the Constitution; the High Court's contrary view was reversed. [3]
The State of Bombay was a large bilingual state where people spoke both Marathi and Gujarati. Parliament passed a law in 1960 that split it into two new states: Gujarat and Maharashtra, from 1 May 1960. The law is still in force and the two states exist today.
A law or decision by the government
Bifurcation of Bombay State
1960
Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960
The State of Bombay was a large bilingual state where people spoke both Marathi and Gujarati. Parliament passed a law in 1960 that split it into two new states: Gujarat and Maharashtra, from 1 May 1960. The law is still in force and the two states exist today.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The State of Bombay was a large bilingual state where people spoke both Marathi and Gujarati. Parliament passed a law in 1960 that split it into two new states: Gujarat and Maharashtra, from 1 May 1960. The law is still in force and the two states exist today.
Who did it
Bifurcation of Bombay State
The evidence
The Act is Act 11 of 1960, dated 25 April 1960. [9][10]
The 'appointed day' under the Act is 1 May 1960. [6]
The population ratio between the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat is 66:31 to 33:69. [6]
The State of Gujarat was formed from 17 districts: Banaskantha, Mehsana, Sabarkantha, Ahmedabad, Kaira, Panchmahals, Baroda, Broach, Surat, Dangs, Amreli, Surendranagar, Rajkot, Jamnagar, Junagadh, Bhavnagar and Kutch, plus certain villages in Thana and West Khandesh districts. [10]
The residuary State of Bombay was named the State of Maharashtra. [10]
Where it stands today
The Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 is in force. The States of Maharashtra and Gujarat exist as constituted by the Act. No proceedings are pending in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 (Act 11 of 1960) on 25 April 1960. The Act formed the State of Gujarat from 17 named districts and certain villages, and the remaining State of Bombay became the State of Maharashtra, from 1 May 1960.
What it meant for the country
The documents record that the bilingual State of Bombay was divided into two states, Maharashtra and Gujarat, on 1 May 1960, but they do not establish whether the consequences for the country were harmful or beneficial.
The bilingual State of Bombay was divided into two states, Maharashtra and Gujarat, on 1 May 1960. [10][12]
Bombay city became the capital of the new Marathi-speaking state of Maharashtra, while Gujarat secured the region around Baroda for itself, as reported by The Indian Express. [12]
In the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), Maharashtra was allotted 19 seats and Gujarat 11 seats. [7]
Step by step
1960-04-25 The Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 (Act 11 of 1960) was enacted, described as 'An Act to provide for the reorganisation of the State of Bombay and for matters connected therewith.' [9][10]
1960-05-01 Appointed day under the Act. The State of Gujarat was formed comprising Banaskantha, Mehsana, Sabarkantha, Ahmedabad, Kaira, Panchmahals, Baroda, Broach, Surat, Dangs, Amreli, Surendranagar, Rajkot, Jamnagar, Junagadh, Bhavnagar and Kutch districts and certain villages; the residuary State of Bombay became the State of Maharashtra. [6][10][12]
1960-05-01 As from the appointed day, 19 seats were allotted to Maharashtra and 11 seats to Gujarat in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), and the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution was amended accordingly. [7][10]
Before 1961, Dadra and Nagar Haveli was a territory called Free Dadra and Nagar Haveli, run by a local body called the Varishta Panchayat. Its people and that body asked to join India, and on 12 June 1961 the Panchayat passed a formal resolution to that effect. In response, Parliament passed the Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961, which made Dadra and Nagar Haveli the seventh Union territory of India and gave the President power to make regulations for its peace, progress and good government. The Act was treated as in force from 11 August 1961 and remains part of the Constitution; in January 2020 the territory was merged with Daman and Diu into one Union territory.
A law or decision by the government
Incorporation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli
1961
Benefit to the nation
Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961
Before 1961, Dadra and Nagar Haveli was a territory called Free Dadra and Nagar Haveli, run by a local body called the Varishta Panchayat. Its people and that body asked to join India, and on 12 June 1961 the Panchayat passed a formal resolution to that effect. In response, Parliament passed the Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961, which made Dadra and Nagar Haveli the seventh Union territory of India and gave the President power to make regulations for its peace, progress and good government. The Act was treated as in force from 11 August 1961 and remains part of the Constitution; in January 2020 the territory was merged with Daman and Diu into one Union territory.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Before 1961, Dadra and Nagar Haveli was a territory called Free Dadra and Nagar Haveli, run by a local body called the Varishta Panchayat. Its people and that body asked to join India, and on 12 June 1961 the Panchayat passed a formal resolution to that effect. In response, Parliament passed the Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961, which made Dadra and Nagar Haveli the seventh Union territory of India and gave the President power to make regulations for its peace, progress and good government. The Act was treated as in force from 11 August 1961 and remains part of the Constitution; in January 2020 the territory was merged with Daman and Diu into one Union territory.
Who did it
Incorporation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli
The evidence
The people and the Varishta Panchayat of Free Dadra and Nagar Haveli repeatedly affirmed their request to the Government of India for integration with India; their request was embodied in a formal Resolution adopted on 12 June 1961. [1][2]
The Government of India decided that these territories should form part of the Union of India. [1][2]
The Act was called the Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961, and was deemed to have come into force on 11 August 1961. [1][9]
The Act amended the First Schedule by inserting entry 7 under THE UNION TERRITORIES: Dadra and Nagar Haveli is the territory which immediately before 11 August 1961 was comprised in Free Dadra and Nagar Haveli. [1][5]
The Act amended article 240 clause (1) by inserting entry (c) Dadra and Nagar Haveli, enabling the President to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of the territory. [1][3][4]
Where it stands today
No proceedings are pending. The Tenth Amendment stands in force as part of the Constitution. The territory was later merged in January 2020 into the Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.
What was done
After the Varishta Panchayat's resolution, the Government of India decided that the territories should form part of the Union of India. Parliament enacted the Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961, which amended the First Schedule to add Dadra and Nagar Haveli as entry 7 under the Union territories, and amended article 240 clause (1) to add the territory so that the President could make regulations for its peace, progress and good government.
What it meant for the country
The amendment completed Dadra and Nagar Haveli's voluntary integration into India as a Union territory and gave the President regulatory power over it.
Dadra and Nagar Haveli became the seventh Union territory of India, formalizing its integration into the Indian Union. [1][2][7]
The President of India gained power to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of the Union territory. [1][3][4]
The territory remained a separate Union territory until January 2020, when it was merged with Daman and Diu to form the single Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. [7][8]
Step by step
1961-06-12 The Varishta Panchayat of Free Dadra and Nagar Haveli adopted a formal Resolution requesting integration of their territories with the Union of India. [1][2]
1961-08-11 The Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961 was deemed to have come into force. It inserted entry 7 in the First Schedule under the heading THE UNION TERRITORIES, defining the territory as the area which immediately before 11 August 1961 was comprised in Free Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and amended article 240 clause (1) by inserting entry (c) Dadra and Nagar Haveli. [1][2][5][9][3]
Dowry means money, property or valuables given in connection with a marriage. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, passed by the Indian Parliament, banned giving, taking and demanding dowry. It defined dowry, set penalties of imprisonment and fines for offences, and said any agreement to give or take dowry has no legal force. The law also required dowry received by someone other than the bride to be handed over to her. The Act remains in force today.
A law or decision by the government
Dowry practices across India
1961
Benefit to the nation
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Dowry means money, property or valuables given in connection with a marriage. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, passed by the Indian Parliament, banned giving, taking and demanding dowry. It defined dowry, set penalties of imprisonment and fines for offences, and said any agreement to give or take dowry has no legal force. The law also required dowry received by someone other than the bride to be handed over to her. The Act remains in force today.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Dowry means money, property or valuables given in connection with a marriage. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, passed by the Indian Parliament, banned giving, taking and demanding dowry. It defined dowry, set penalties of imprisonment and fines for offences, and said any agreement to give or take dowry has no legal force. The law also required dowry received by someone other than the bride to be handed over to her. The Act remains in force today.
Who did it
Dowry practices across India
The evidence
Section 2 of the Act defines dowry as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other party, or by the parent of either party or any other person, to either party or any other person, at, before, or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage. It does not include dower or mahr under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). [1][5]
Section 3 makes giving, taking or abetting the giving or taking of dowry punishable with imprisonment of not less than 5 years and a fine of not less than ₹15,000 or the value of the dowry, whichever is more. The court may impose less than 5 years for special recorded reasons. [1][6]
Section 4 makes demanding dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents, relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom punishable with imprisonment of 6 months to 2 years and a fine up to ₹10,000. [1][11]
Section 5 says any agreement for giving or taking dowry is void. [1]
Section 6 requires any dowry received by a person other than the woman to be transferred to her within 3 months of marriage or receipt, or within 3 months of her turning 18 if received while she was a minor, and to be held in trust for her benefit until then. Failure to transfer is punishable with imprisonment of 6 months to 2 years or a fine of ₹5,000 to ₹10,000, or both. [3][4]
Where it stands today
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is in force. Supreme Court proceedings concerning enforcement and implementation of the Act were heard on 2 May 2005 and subsequently; no final order is among the sources.
What was done
The Indian Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The law defines dowry as property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other, or by the parents of either party or any other person, at any time before, at, or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. The law made giving, taking, or abetting the giving or taking of dowry punishable with imprisonment of not less than five years and a fine of not less than ₹15,000 or the value of the dowry, whichever is more. It made demanding dowry punishable with imprisonment of at least six months, up to two years, and a fine up to ₹10,000.
What it meant for the country
The Act gave women a legal right to dowry property received by others and made giving, taking and demanding dowry criminal offences, thereby securing rights against a harmful marriage practice.
The Act made any agreement for giving or taking dowry void, so such agreements have no legal force. [1]
The Act gave women a legal right to dowry received by any person other than the woman: it must be transferred to her within three months of marriage or receipt, and is held in trust for her benefit until then. [3][4]
The Act made giving or taking dowry a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment of not less than 5 years and a fine of not less than ₹15,000 or the value of the dowry, whichever is higher. [1][6]
The Act made demanding dowry a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment of 6 months to 2 years and a fine up to ₹10,000. [1][11]
The Act created the office of Dowry Prohibition Officer, to be appointed by State Governments, with powers to ensure compliance, prevent offences, collect evidence for prosecution, and perform further functions. [1][12]
Step by step
1961 Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 2 defined dowry. Section 3 made giving or taking dowry punishable with at least 5 years imprisonment and a fine of at least ₹15,000 or the value of the dowry, whichever is higher. Section 4 made demanding dowry punishable with 6 months to 2 years imprisonment and a fine up to ₹10,000. Section 5 made dowry agreements void. Section 6 required dowry received by someone other than the woman to be transferred to her within 3 months, held in trust. Section 8B authorised State Governments to appoint Dowry Prohibition Officers. [1][2][5][6][11][3][4][12]
1975 The Dowry Prohibition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1975 was enacted to amend the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in its application to West Bengal. [10]
2005-05-02 The Supreme Court heard the case In Re: Enforcement and Implementation of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Submissions urged directions to Dowry Prohibition Officers to enforce Sections 3, 4, 4A and 6 of the Act and Rules 2 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. [7][8]
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: final enactment and legislative record
In India, dowry — property or valuable security given in connection with a marriage — was a widespread practice. Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 20 May 1961 to ban giving or taking dowry and to penalise violations. The law came into force on 1 July 1961 and remains the legal basis for prohibiting dowry.
A law or decision by the government
Dowry and women's rights
1961
Benefit to the nation
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: final enactment and legislative record
In India, dowry — property or valuable security given in connection with a marriage — was a widespread practice. Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 20 May 1961 to ban giving or taking dowry and to penalise violations. The law came into force on 1 July 1961 and remains the legal basis for prohibiting dowry.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In India, dowry — property or valuable security given in connection with a marriage — was a widespread practice. Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 20 May 1961 to ban giving or taking dowry and to penalise violations. The law came into force on 1 July 1961 and remains the legal basis for prohibiting dowry.
Who did it
Dowry and women's rights
The evidence
Section 2 defines 'dowry' as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other, or by the parent of either party or any other person to either party or any other person, at, before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage, excluding dower or mahr under Muslim Personal Law. [5]
Section 5 makes any agreement for giving or taking dowry void. [13]
Section 6(1) requires a person other than the wife who receives dowry to transfer it to the wife within three months after marriage, receipt, or the wife turning eighteen if she was a minor. [3]
Section 3 provides that giving or taking dowry is punishable with not less than five years' imprisonment and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the dowry's value, whichever is more. [2]
Section 1 gives the short title as the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. [6]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force. The sources record no pending challenge to the enactment itself; later court proceedings concerned enforcement of the Act's provisions.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Act defines dowry, voids any agreement to give or take dowry, punishes giving or taking dowry with at least five years' imprisonment and a fine of at least ₹15,000 or the dowry's value, whichever is more, and requires any dowry received by someone other than the wife to be transferred to her within three months.
What it meant for the country
The Act made giving or taking dowry a criminal offence and gave the wife a legal claim to dowry received by others, providing legal protection against an exploitative marriage practice.
Giving or taking dowry was made punishable with imprisonment of not less than five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is more. [2]
Any agreement to give or take dowry was made void, so it cannot be enforced. [5]
If dowry is received by someone other than the wife, that person must transfer it to the wife within three months of marriage or receipt, or within three months after she turns eighteen if she was a minor. [4]
Step by step
1961-05-20 Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, described as 'An Act to prohibit the giving or taking of dowry'. [14]
1961-07-01 The Dowry Prohibition Act came into force, as recorded in a later court judgment. [10]
The Income-tax Act, 1961 is a single statute that sets out India's income-tax rules. It says who is a resident, what income is deemed to arise in India, what may be deducted from business profits, and when a spouse's or minor child's income is added to an individual's taxable income. The Act extends to the whole of India and has been amended at various times, including in 1965, 1973, 1986, 2020 and 2023; it remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Taxation
1961
Income-tax Act, 1961
The Income-tax Act, 1961 is a single statute that sets out India's income-tax rules. It says who is a resident, what income is deemed to arise in India, what may be deducted from business profits, and when a spouse's or minor child's income is added to an individual's taxable income. The Act extends to the whole of India and has been amended at various times, including in 1965, 1973, 1986, 2020 and 2023; it remains in force.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Income-tax Act, 1961 is a single statute that sets out India's income-tax rules. It says who is a resident, what income is deemed to arise in India, what may be deducted from business profits, and when a spouse's or minor child's income is added to an individual's taxable income. The Act extends to the whole of India and has been amended at various times, including in 1965, 1973, 1986, 2020 and 2023; it remains in force.
Who did it
Taxation
The evidence
The statute is named The Income-tax Act, 1961 and extends to the whole of India [12]. [12]
Section 6 defines residence and 'not ordinarily resident'; 'place of effective management' means the place where key management and commercial decisions are in substance made [1]. [1]
Section 9 deems income to accrue or arise in India from business connections, property, assets, Government salaries paid abroad, interest and royalties, subject to stated exceptions [2]. [2]
Section 56 treats compensation or other payment received on termination of employment as income, and its explanation includes virtual digital asset in 'property' [3]. [3]
Section 61 charges income from a revocable transfer of assets to the transferor as the transferor's income [4]. [4]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force as enacted and amended. The sources record no pending challenge or proceeding.
What was done
The Income-tax Act, 1961 was made as a single statute extending to the whole of India [12]. Central Acts amended it: Act 10 of 1965 omitted a charging provision in section 294 [9], and later insertions were made effective 1 April 2020 and 1 April 2023 [7][3]. The sections in force require income to be taxed in the situations they specify, including deemed Indian income, revocable transfers, and income of a spouse or child [2][4][5].
What it meant for the country
The cited sections bring a wide range of income into the tax net and block certain deductions, but the sources record no figures on revenue raised, taxpayers affected or costs to the exchequer.
Income from a revocable transfer of assets is made chargeable to tax as income of the transferor, so the transferor cannot shift the tax burden by handing over the asset [4]. [4]
An individual's taxable income must include certain income of the spouse and minor child, which can increase the tax payable by the family [5]. [5]
Amounts paid outside India or to a non-resident cannot be deducted as business expenses if the required tax was not deducted and paid by the due date, and 30 per cent of certain resident payments is also disallowed in that situation [7]. [7]
Various incomes of non-residents, including interest, royalty and Government salary paid to citizens working outside India, are deemed to accrue in India and are therefore brought into the Indian tax net [2]. [2]
Step by step
1961 The statute is titled The Income-tax Act, 1961 and extends to the whole of India [12]. [12]
1965 Act 10 of 1965 omitted a provision in section 294 concerning the charging of income-tax, with the omission recorded as having retrospective effect [9]. [9]
1973-06-01 Section 64 includes in an individual's total income income from assets transferred on or after 1 June 1973 to a son's wife, or to another person for the spouse's or son's wife's benefit, where the transfer was not for adequate consideration [5]. [5]
1986 Section 9's text refers to the Government of India's Policy on Computer Software Export, Software Development and Training, 1986, under which certain computer software supplied by a non-resident manufacturer with approved equipment is excluded from deemed Indian royalty income [2]. [2]
2020-04-01 An insertion in section 40, effective 1 April 2020, provides a deeming rule for an assessee who failed to deduct tax but is not in default: the tax is taken to have been deducted and paid on the date the payee files the return [7]. [7]
2023-04-01 Section 56's explanation was amended effective 1 April 2023 so that the meaning of 'property' includes virtual digital asset [3]. [3]
Women workers in certain workplaces in India get paid time off around childbirth and protection from losing their job because of it. Parliament passed the Maternity Benefit Act in 1961 to give women these rights, including payment of their average daily wage during maternity leave and a ban on dismissing them while on leave. The law was amended in 2008 to raise the medical bonus from Rs. 250 to Rs. 1,000 and again in 2017 to extend paid maternity leave to 26 weeks; it is in force today as amended.
A law or decision by the government
Women workers' rights
1961
Benefit to the nation
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
Women workers in certain workplaces in India get paid time off around childbirth and protection from losing their job because of it. Parliament passed the Maternity Benefit Act in 1961 to give women these rights, including payment of their average daily wage during maternity leave and a ban on dismissing them while on leave. The law was amended in 2008 to raise the medical bonus from Rs. 250 to Rs. 1,000 and again in 2017 to extend paid maternity leave to 26 weeks; it is in force today as amended.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Women workers in certain workplaces in India get paid time off around childbirth and protection from losing their job because of it. Parliament passed the Maternity Benefit Act in 1961 to give women these rights, including payment of their average daily wage during maternity leave and a ban on dismissing them while on leave. The law was amended in 2008 to raise the medical bonus from Rs. 250 to Rs. 1,000 and again in 2017 to extend paid maternity leave to 26 weeks; it is in force today as amended.
Who did it
Women workers' rights
The evidence
To qualify for maternity benefit, a woman must have worked in the establishment for at least 80 days in the 12 months immediately before her expected delivery. [1][8]
If the nature of the work allows it, the employer may allow a woman to work from home after she avails maternity benefit, on conditions both agree. [1]
If a woman dies during the maternity period after delivery leaving behind the child, the employer is liable for the full maternity benefit; if the child also dies, benefit is payable only up to the date of the child's death. [1][8]
A woman deprived of maternity benefit or dismissed during maternity absence may appeal within 60 days of the order being communicated to her, and the prescribed authority's decision is final. [3]
The Act prevails over anything inconsistent in any other law, award, agreement or contract of service, but a woman continues to enjoy any more favourable benefits she is entitled to. [4]
Where it stands today
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 remains in force as amended by the 2008 and 2017 amendments. No appeal or pending proceeding concerning the Act is recorded in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which entitles women workers to paid maternity leave at their average daily wage and makes it unlawful to dismiss them during maternity absence. The Central Government introduced an amendment Bill in 2007, and the Rajya Sabha passed it on 27 February 2008 to raise the medical bonus from Rs. 250 to Rs. 1,000; a further amendment in 2017 raised paid maternity leave to 26 weeks.
What it meant for the country
The law secures income and job protection for women workers around childbirth: paid leave at average daily wage for up to 26 weeks, protection from dismissal during maternity absence, and a medical bonus that was raised from Rs. 250 to Rs. 1,000.
Women are entitled to be paid their average daily wage for up to 26 weeks of maternity absence (12 weeks for a woman with two or more surviving children), securing their income around childbirth. [1][8]
A woman cannot be dismissed from her job because she takes maternity leave; a dismissal during pregnancy cannot take away her maternity benefit or medical bonus. [3]
The Act overrides less favourable rules, so a woman could not be denied a second maternity leave based on a two-year restriction in the Financial Handbook, as the Allahabad High Court held in Dr Nidhi Rai vs State of U.P. [9]
Women cannot be made to work for six weeks after delivery, miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy. [2]
A woman suffering illness arising out of pregnancy, delivery or miscarriage is entitled to paid leave for up to one month in addition to her maternity leave. [5]
A woman who legally adopts a child below three months, or a commissioning mother, is entitled to 12 weeks of maternity benefit from the date the child is handed over. [1]
Step by step
1961 Parliament enacted the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, providing for payment of maternity benefit at the average daily wage and making it unlawful for an employer to discharge or dismiss a woman during or on account of maternity absence. [1][2][3][12]
2007-05-14 The Central Government introduced the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2007 in the Rajya Sabha to enhance the medical bonus under the Act. [7]
2008-02-27 The Rajya Sabha passed the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2008. [7]
2008-03-19 The Lok Sabha debated the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2008; the Minister of State for Labour and Employment stated the Bill would enhance the medical bonus from Rs. 250 to Rs. 1,000 and allow the ceiling to be revised after every three years up to Rs. 20,000. [7]
2019-04-19 The Allahabad High Court in Anshu Rani vs State of U.P. referred to the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as amended in the year 2017. [10]
2024-10-18 The Madras High Court in Kanchipuram District vs Principal Secretary held that any attempt to enforce a contract duration term against a woman during the maternity period would constitute 'discharge' and attract the protection in Section 12(2)(a) of the 1961 Act, treating her as being in employment for the purpose of availing maternity benefits. [11]
Before 1961, seats in Parliament and the state assemblies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were mostly in two-member constituencies, where voters elected two members and one seat was reserved. Parliament passed a law on 9 March 1961 to end these two-member constituencies and replace each with two single-member constituencies, with the Election Commission deciding which of the two would be reserved. The law stands today.
A law or decision by the government
Electoral system and reserved seats
1961
Benefit to the nation
Two-Member Constituencies (Abolition) Act, 1961
Before 1961, seats in Parliament and the state assemblies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were mostly in two-member constituencies, where voters elected two members and one seat was reserved. Parliament passed a law on 9 March 1961 to end these two-member constituencies and replace each with two single-member constituencies, with the Election Commission deciding which of the two would be reserved. The law stands today.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Before 1961, seats in Parliament and the state assemblies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were mostly in two-member constituencies, where voters elected two members and one seat was reserved. Parliament passed a law on 9 March 1961 to end these two-member constituencies and replace each with two single-member constituencies, with the Election Commission deciding which of the two would be reserved. The law stands today.
Who did it
Electoral system and reserved seats
The evidence
The Act was enacted by Parliament on 9 March 1961, in the Twelfth Year of the Republic of India. [2][8]
Before the Act, seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution were generally in two-member constituencies, though a few were in single-member constituencies. [2][8]
The Act directed the Election Commission to divide every two-member constituency, other than a two-member assembly constituency in Gujarat, into two single-member constituencies and delimit their extent. [3][5][10]
The seat was to be reserved in the single-member constituency which, in the Commission's opinion, had the greater concentration of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe population, using the 1951 census. [3]
The 'Commission' is defined as the Election Commission appointed by the President under Article 324 of the Constitution. [4][7]
Where it stands today
The Act stands as enacted and in force. No proceedings are recorded in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Two-Member Constituencies (Abolition) Act, 1961 on 9 March 1961. It directed the Election Commission, the body appointed by the President under Article 324 of the Constitution, to divide every two-member parliamentary and assembly constituency (except one assembly constituency in Gujarat) into two single-member constituencies, delimit their boundaries, and reserve the seat in the constituency with the greater concentration of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe population according to the 1951 census.
What it meant for the country
The Act moved reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes out of two-member constituencies into single-member constituencies, a change the statement of objects records those members favoured as involving less expenditure and trouble.
Reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were moved from two-member constituencies into single-member constituencies, which the statement of objects records members of those communities generally favoured as involving less expenditure and trouble. [2][8]
The reserved seat in each divided constituency was to be placed in the single-member constituency with the greater concentration of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe population as counted in the 1951 census. [3]
Sitting members of the abolished two-member constituencies were deemed elected from the corresponding new single-member constituencies, so no fresh election was required for them. [5][6]
Step by step
1956 The Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1956 was prepared under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, specifying two-member parliamentary and assembly constituencies in its First and Second Schedules. [13][14]
1961-03-09 Parliament enacted the Two-Member Constituencies (Abolition) Act, 1961, to abolish two-member parliamentary and assembly constituencies and create single-member constituencies in their place. [2][8]
France handed over its four small settlements in India — Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam — to India under a treaty signed in 1956, and these territories formally became part of India on 16 August 1962. Parliament then passed the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, which added these territories to the Constitution's First Schedule as a ninth Union territory called Pondicherry and gave Parliament the power to create a local legislature and a council of ministers for Pondicherry and certain other Union territories. The amendment remains in force, and article 239A of the Constitution continues to carry that power.
A law or decision by the government
Incorporation of Pondicherry
1962
Benefit to the nation
Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962
France handed over its four small settlements in India — Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam — to India under a treaty signed in 1956, and these territories formally became part of India on 16 August 1962. Parliament then passed the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, which added these territories to the Constitution's First Schedule as a ninth Union territory called Pondicherry and gave Parliament the power to create a local legislature and a council of ministers for Pondicherry and certain other Union territories. The amendment remains in force, and article 239A of the Constitution continues to carry that power.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
France handed over its four small settlements in India — Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam — to India under a treaty signed in 1956, and these territories formally became part of India on 16 August 1962. Parliament then passed the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, which added these territories to the Constitution's First Schedule as a ninth Union territory called Pondicherry and gave Parliament the power to create a local legislature and a council of ministers for Pondicherry and certain other Union territories. The amendment remains in force, and article 239A of the Constitution continues to carry that power.
Who did it
Incorporation of Pondicherry
The evidence
The Treaty of Cession between France and India was concluded on 28 May 1956, establishing the cession of the French Establishments by France to India in full sovereignty. [8]
The 'appointed day' for the transfer was 16 August 1962, being the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Cession. [8]
The Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962 is deemed to have come into force on 16 August 1962. [6][9]
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment inserted entry 9 in the First Schedule, defining Pondicherry as the territories which immediately before 16 August 1962 were comprised in the French Establishments in India known as Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam. [7]
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment inserted article 239A into the Constitution. [3]
Where it stands today
The Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 stands in force; article 239A remains in the Constitution. No proceedings are pending and nothing has concluded adversely.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962. Through it, Parliament added entry 9 to the First Schedule of the Constitution, making Pondicherry — the territories of the former French Establishments of Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam — a Union territory, and inserted article 239A to allow Parliament to create a Legislature or Council of Ministers for Pondicherry and five other Union territories. As reported by Wikipedia, the amendment also raised the maximum Lok Sabha seats for Union territories from 20 to 25, amended article 240 to let the President make regulations for Pondicherry, and amended the Fourth Schedule to give Pondicherry one Rajya Sabha seat.
What it meant for the country
The incorporation brought the people of the four former French territories into the Indian Union with parliamentary representation and a pathway to a local legislature, a gain in political rights recorded in the amendment.
The former French territories gained a defined constitutional status as the ninth Union territory of India, recorded in entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Constitution. [7][10]
As reported by Wikipedia, Pondicherry was allocated one seat in the Rajya Sabha, India's upper house of Parliament. [10]
As reported by Wikipedia, the maximum number of Lok Sabha seats for Union territories was raised from 20 to 25 to enable representation for Pondicherry in the lower house of Parliament. [10]
Parliament acquired the power, through new article 239A, to create an elected or partly elected Legislature and a Council of Ministers for Pondicherry, laying the groundwork for representative government in the territory. [3][4]
Step by step
1956-05-28 France and India concluded the Treaty of Cession, establishing the cession of the French Establishments by France to India in full sovereignty (defined in section 2(g) of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962). [8]
1962 The Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 was enacted. Section 3 inserted entry 9 in the First Schedule to the Constitution under 'The Union Territories', reading: 'Pondicherry — The territories which immediately before the sixteenth day of August, 1962, were comprised in the French Establishments in India known as Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam.' Section 4 inserted new article 239A, empowering Parliament to create by law a Legislature or a Council of Ministers, or both, for the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu, and Pondicherry. Section 7 provided that section 3 and clause (a) of section 5 shall be deemed to have come into force on 16 August 1962. As reported by Wikipedia, section 2 raised the maximum number of Lok Sabha seats for Union territories from 20 to 25, and the Fourth Schedule was amended to allocate one Rajya Sabha seat to Pondicherry. [7][3][2][10]
1962-08-16 The Treaty of Cession entered into force; the territories of the former French Establishments in India — Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam — became part of the Indian Union. The Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962 is deemed to have come into force on this day. [2][6][8][9]
Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962: incorporation of Goa, Daman and Diu
Goa, Daman and Diu were Portuguese-administered territories that came under Indian control on 20 December 1961. Parliament passed the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962 to list them in the Constitution's First Schedule as the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and to let the President make regulations for their administration. That arrangement stood until 1987, when Parliament made Goa a State and made Daman and Diu a separate Union territory.
A law or decision by the government
Goa, Daman and Diu incorporation
1962
Benefit to the nation
Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962: incorporation of Goa, Daman and Diu
Goa, Daman and Diu were Portuguese-administered territories that came under Indian control on 20 December 1961. Parliament passed the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962 to list them in the Constitution's First Schedule as the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and to let the President make regulations for their administration. That arrangement stood until 1987, when Parliament made Goa a State and made Daman and Diu a separate Union territory.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Goa, Daman and Diu were Portuguese-administered territories that came under Indian control on 20 December 1961. Parliament passed the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962 to list them in the Constitution's First Schedule as the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and to let the President make regulations for their administration. That arrangement stood until 1987, when Parliament made Goa a State and made Daman and Diu a separate Union territory.
Who did it
Goa, Daman and Diu incorporation
The evidence
The Statement of Objects and Reasons said the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu were acquired with effect from 20 December 1961 and, by article 1(3)(c) of the Constitution, were comprised within India from that date; they were being administered as a Union territory by the President through an Administrator under article 239. [1]
The Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962 was deemed to have come into force on 20 December 1961. [1][8]
The First Schedule was amended by inserting, after entry 7, entry 8: "Goa, Daman and Diu: The territories which immediately before the twentieth day of December, 1961 were comprised in Goa, Daman and Diu." [1][2][10]
Article 240(1) of the Constitution was amended by inserting entry (d), "Goa, Daman and Diu", after entry (c), allowing the President to make regulations for the territory. [1]
Article 240(2) provides that a President's regulation may repeal or amend an Act made by Parliament or other law applicable to the Union territory and, when promulgated, has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament applying to that territory. [3]
Where it stands today
No case or inquiry is shown as pending in the documents. The 1962 constitutional amendment remains enacted, although the territory's status was later changed by the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987.
What was done
Parliament inserted entry 8 in the First Schedule to the Constitution and amended article 240 to give the President power to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of Goa, Daman and Diu. The Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation, 1962 then extended a range of Indian laws to the territory. In 1987, Parliament reorganised the territory by law, conferring statehood on Goa and making Daman and Diu a separate Union territory.
What it meant for the country
The documents record that Goa, Daman and Diu were brought into India's constitutional and legal framework, and Goa later obtained statehood with parliamentary representation.
Goa, Daman and Diu were included in the First Schedule as the eighth Union territory of India, and the President was given power to make regulations for their peace, progress and good government. [1][2]
Regulations made by the President for the Union territory could repeal or amend an Act of Parliament or other applicable law and, when promulgated, had the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. [3]
The Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation, 1962 extended a series of Indian laws to the territory, including the Insurance Act, 1938 and the Companies Act, 1956, with modifications for local application. [4]
Under the 1987 reorganisation, Goa was to become a State and Daman and Diu a separate Union territory; two Lok Sabha seats were allotted to the State of Goa and one seat to the Union territory of Daman and Diu. [5]
Step by step
1961-12-20 Goa, Daman and Diu were acquired by India with effect from this date and, by article 1(3)(c) of the Constitution, were comprised within the territory of India from that date. The Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962 was later deemed to have come into force on this date. [1][8]
1962 Parliament enacted the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962. It inserted entry 8 under the heading "THE UNION TERRITORIES" in the First Schedule and amended article 240(1) by inserting entry (d) for Goa, Daman and Diu, giving the President power to make regulations for the territory. [1][2][10]
1962 The Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation, 1962 was issued. It extended various Indian laws to the Union territory, with adaptations, including provisions relating to insurance, companies, motor vehicles and other matters. [4]
1987 Parliament enacted the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987, deciding to confer statehood on the Goa district of the Union territory and to make Daman and Diu a separate Union territory. [5]
Before 1962, customs in India was governed by the old Sea Customs Act and separate rules for land and air customs. Parliament passed the Customs Act, 1962 to bring sea, land and air customs under one law, and it came into force on 1 February 1963. The Act sets up customs officers and customs ports, and gives powers to confiscate goods and impose penalties; it remains in force with later amendments.
A law or decision by the government
Customs regulation
1962
Customs Act, 1962
Before 1962, customs in India was governed by the old Sea Customs Act and separate rules for land and air customs. Parliament passed the Customs Act, 1962 to bring sea, land and air customs under one law, and it came into force on 1 February 1963. The Act sets up customs officers and customs ports, and gives powers to confiscate goods and impose penalties; it remains in force with later amendments.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Before 1962, customs in India was governed by the old Sea Customs Act and separate rules for land and air customs. Parliament passed the Customs Act, 1962 to bring sea, land and air customs under one law, and it came into force on 1 February 1963. The Act sets up customs officers and customs ports, and gives powers to confiscate goods and impose penalties; it remains in force with later amendments.
Who did it
Customs regulation
The evidence
The Customs Act, 1962 was enacted by Parliament on 13 December 1962 and came into force on 1 February 1963 [1]. [1]
It consolidated the law relating to sea customs, land customs and air customs into one comprehensive measure [1]. [1]
The Act provides for classes of customs officers including Chief Commissioner, Commissioners, Joint Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners [1]. [1]
The Board may appoint ports and airports as customs ports or customs airports, inland container depots, land customs stations, coastal ports, foreign post offices and international courier terminals for clearance of goods [1]. [1]
Section 11 allows the Central Government to prohibit import or export of goods for purposes including national security, prevention of smuggling, conservation of foreign exchange, and protection of public health [9]. [9]
Where it stands today
The Customs Act, 1962 is in force. No pending proceedings concerning the Act itself are identified in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Customs Act, 1962 on 13 December 1962, consolidating sea, land and air customs law [1]. The Act established classes of customs officers and empowered the Board to appoint customs ports, airports and other places for unloading and loading goods [1][10]. It gave customs officers powers to summon persons and to adjudge confiscation and penalties [5][13].
What it meant for the country
The Customs Act, 1962 establishes powers to prohibit imports and exports and to confiscate goods and conveyances, but the sources contain no figures on enforcement outcomes, so the consequences cannot be determined.
The Act gives customs officers and the Central Government broad powers to regulate imports and exports, including confiscation of goods and conveyances and prohibition of trade for listed public purposes, which are in force [9][7][2][15]. [9][7][2][15]
No figures on seizures, revenue collected, or persons penalised are provided in the sources, so the practical effect on people or money cannot be documented [1][2][3][5][7][9][13][14][15][18]. [1][2][3][5][7][9][13][14][15][18]
Step by step
1962-12-13 Parliament enacted the Customs Act, 1962 to consolidate and amend the law relating to customs [1]. [1]
1963-02-01 The Customs Act, 1962 was brought into force [1]. [1]
1978 Amendment Act 25 of 1978 was passed to carry out certain amendments in the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 [1]. [1]
1985 Amendment Act 80 of 1985 was passed, concerning the levy of duties of customs [1]. [1]
1988 Amendment Act 29 of 1988 and Act 27 of 1988 were passed, relating to warehousing, unjust enrichment and other matters under the Customs Act [1]. [1]
After the 1962 border war with China, the President declared a national emergency on 26 October 1962 under Article 352(1) of the Constitution. Parliament then passed a law called the Defence of India Act, 1962, which gave the central government broad power to make rules for defence, public safety, public order, military operations and essential supplies, including rules providing for arrest, trial, seizure of property and up to seven years' imprisonment for breaking them. The law was tied to that emergency and lapsed six months after the Ministry of Home Affairs declared the emergency ended on 10 January 1968, so it is no longer in force; a companion law arranged compensation payments for people injured during the 1962-68 emergency.
Closed without a verdict
Emergency powers during Sino-Indian war
1962
Mixed
Defence of India Act, 1962 and rules
After the 1962 border war with China, the President declared a national emergency on 26 October 1962 under Article 352(1) of the Constitution. Parliament then passed a law called the Defence of India Act, 1962, which gave the central government broad power to make rules for defence, public safety, public order, military operations and essential supplies, including rules providing for arrest, trial, seizure of property and up to seven years' imprisonment for breaking them. The law was tied to that emergency and lapsed six months after the Ministry of Home Affairs declared the emergency ended on 10 January 1968, so it is no longer in force; a companion law arranged compensation payments for people injured during the 1962-68 emergency.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
After the 1962 border war with China, the President declared a national emergency on 26 October 1962 under Article 352(1) of the Constitution. Parliament then passed a law called the Defence of India Act, 1962, which gave the central government broad power to make rules for defence, public safety, public order, military operations and essential supplies, including rules providing for arrest, trial, seizure of property and up to seven years' imprisonment for breaking them. The law was tied to that emergency and lapsed six months after the Ministry of Home Affairs declared the emergency ended on 10 January 1968, so it is no longer in force; a companion law arranged compensation payments for people injured during the 1962-68 emergency.
Who did it
Emergency powers during Sino-Indian war
The evidence
Section 1(2): the Act extended to the whole of India and applied to citizens of India outside India, persons in the service of the Government wherever they may be, members of and persons attached to the armed forces, and persons on ships and aircraft registered in India. [1][2]
Section 1(3): the Act remained in force during the operation of the Proclamation of Emergency issued on 26 October 1962 and for six months after; its expiry did not affect penalties, forfeitures, punishments, investigations or proceedings already incurred or begun. [1][2]
Section 3(1): the Central Government could make such rules as appeared to it necessary for the defence of India and civil defence, public safety, maintenance of public order, efficient conduct of military operations, or maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. [7]
Section 12(2): rules could provide that a contravention, attempt or abetment be punishable with imprisonment up to seven years or fine or both; provide for arrest and trial of persons reasonably suspected of contravening; and provide for seizure, detention and forfeiture of property involved. [8][1]
Section 6: the Director or an authorised authority could, by written order, dismiss summarily from a Civil Defence Service any member who failed to discharge duties satisfactorily, was guilty of misconduct, or whose continued presence in the Service was otherwise undesirable. [6]
Where it stands today
No pending proceeding is recorded in the sources. The Act expired by its own terms: it was in force during the 26 October 1962 emergency and six months after; the Ministry of Home Affairs declared the emergency ended on 10 January 1968, so the Act lapsed around July 1968.
What was done
The President declared an emergency on 26 October 1962 under Article 352(1) of the Constitution. Parliament enacted the Defence of India Act, 1962, tied in duration to that emergency, empowering the Central Government to make rules for the defence of India, public safety, public order, military operations and essential supplies, including rules for arrest, trial, property seizure and imprisonment up to seven years. The Central Government also made a relief scheme under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1962 covering personal injuries from 26 October 1962 to 10 January 1968.
What it meant for the country
The record shows the executive gained powers that curtailed liberty - arrest, trial, property seizure and up to seven years' imprisonment - while a separate scheme provided compensation for injuries during the 1962-68 emergency, so the recorded consequences are mixed.
The Central Government could make rules providing for the arrest and trial of persons reasonably suspected of contravening defence rules, and for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of their property. [8]
Rules under the Act could punish a contravention, attempt or abetment with imprisonment for up to seven years, or with fine, or with both. [8][1]
A member of a Civil Defence Service could be dismissed summarily if, in the Director's or authorised authority's opinion, his continued presence in the Service was otherwise undesirable. [6]
The Act applied to citizens of India outside India and to persons in the service of the Government wherever they may be. [1][2]
A companion scheme provided payments - temporary allowance, lump sums for serious or permanent disablement or death, and artificial limbs and medical treatment - for personal injuries sustained during the emergency of 26 October 1962 to 10 January 1968. [13][14]
Step by step
1962 The Defence of India Act, 1962 was enacted. Section 1(3) provided that it would remain in force during the operation of the 26 October 1962 emergency and for six months after, and that its expiry would not wipe out penalties, proceedings or liabilities already incurred under it. [1][2]
1962-10-26 The President issued the Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352(1) of the Constitution, dated 26 October 1962; the Defence of India Act's definitions and its duration clause both refer to this proclamation. [1][4]
1968-01-10 The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, by notification No. ... 93 dated 10 January 1968, declared the 26 October 1962 emergency to have come to an end; under section 1(3) of the Act, the Act then remained in force for six more months before expiring. [14][13]
In the 1960s the government brought in strict controls on gold to stop smuggling and save foreign exchange. Parliament passed the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, which barred people from owning, buying or receiving primary gold except as allowed, restricted sales to licensed dealers, and required dealers to hold licences. A 1971 amendment reopened past confiscations of gold and provided for refund or payment of market value. Parliament repealed the Act on 6 June 1990, ending the controls.
Closed without a verdict
Gold holders and traders in India
1962
Harm to the nation
Gold Control Act, 1962
In the 1960s the government brought in strict controls on gold to stop smuggling and save foreign exchange. Parliament passed the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, which barred people from owning, buying or receiving primary gold except as allowed, restricted sales to licensed dealers, and required dealers to hold licences. A 1971 amendment reopened past confiscations of gold and provided for refund or payment of market value. Parliament repealed the Act on 6 June 1990, ending the controls.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
In the 1960s the government brought in strict controls on gold to stop smuggling and save foreign exchange. Parliament passed the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, which barred people from owning, buying or receiving primary gold except as allowed, restricted sales to licensed dealers, and required dealers to hold licences. A 1971 amendment reopened past confiscations of gold and provided for refund or payment of market value. Parliament repealed the Act on 6 June 1990, ending the controls.
Who did it
Gold holders and traders in India
The evidence
The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 extended to the whole of India. [3]
Section 8(1) of the Act provided that no person shall own or have in his possession, custody or control, or acquire or agree to acquire, or buy, accept or otherwise receive, any primary gold, save as otherwise provided in the Act. [2]
Section 8(4) provided that no person shall sell, deliver, transfer or otherwise dispose of any article to a person who is not a licensed dealer or refiner. [2]
Part XII-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 commenced on 10 January 1963. [4]
Section 116 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 repealed the Gold (Control) Act, 1965 and the Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968. [10]
Where it stands today
The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 stands repealed as of 6 June 1990. Proceedings already begun under it could continue after repeal under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, which restricted the ownership, acquisition, possession and disposal of gold across India, and later repealed it on 6 June 1990. A 1971 amendment allowed people whose gold had been confiscated to apply to have the confiscation set aside and the gold returned or its market value paid.
What it meant for the country
The controls restricted people's right to hold, buy and sell gold and led to confiscations of gold that the 1971 amendment had to reopen for refund or market-value payment, though Parliament later repealed the Act.
Ordinary people were barred from owning, acquiring, buying, accepting or receiving primary gold except as the Act allowed, a restriction on their right to hold property. [2]
People lost gold to confiscation under the Act: the 1971 Amendment provided for reopening of such confiscation orders and for refund or payment of the market value of the gold where returning it was not practicable. [5]
After the Act was repealed on 6 June 1990, investigations and legal proceedings already begun under it continued under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, so people could still face proceedings. [11]
Appeals arising under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were still pending when the Act was repealed on 6 June 1990. [7]
Step by step
1963-01-10 Part XII-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the earlier gold control rules, came into force, as recorded in the definitions of the 1968 Act. [4]
1965 The Gold (Control) Act, 1965 (18 of 1965) was in force; the 1968 Act later repealed it. [10]
1968 Parliament enacted the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, which extended to the whole of India. Section 8 barred any person from owning, having in possession, custody or control, acquiring, buying, accepting or receiving any primary gold except as otherwise provided, and barred selling or transferring an article to anyone who was not a licensed dealer or refiner. Section 116 repealed the Gold (Control) Act, 1965 and the Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968. [1][2][3][10]
1971 Parliament passed the Gold (Control) Amendment Act, 1971, allowing reopening of past confiscation orders made before its commencement where they could not have been made under the amended Act, and providing for refund or restitution, with payment of market value where restitution was not practicable. It also validated earlier confiscations, penalties and fines so far as consistent with the amendment, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court. [5]
1986-03-12 A High Court heard a writ petition by Lal Chand Tilak Raj against the Union of India challenging action taken for alleged violation of the Defence of India Act and Gold Control Rules, 1962 as amended, read with the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. [9]
1990-06-06 The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was repealed on 6 June 1990, as recorded by the Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal in Malti Devi vs Collector of Central Excise and by the tribunal in Mohanlal Vanmalidas and Company. [7][11]
Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report and Parliament's record on the forward policy, 1962
After India lost the 1962 border war with China, the Army prepared an internal review in 1963, known as the Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report, to find out why India was defeated. The government has kept this report secret. The Ministry of Defence refused requests to release it, and the Central Information Commission, the body that hears appeals under the Right to Information Act, examined the report in 2008 and decided it should stay secret for national security reasons. Parliament debated declassifying it again in 2017. The report remains classified; no declassification is recorded in the sources.
Closed without a verdict
1962 India-China war and the forward policy
1962
Harm to the nation
Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report and Parliament's record on the forward policy, 1962
After India lost the 1962 border war with China, the Army prepared an internal review in 1963, known as the Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report, to find out why India was defeated. The government has kept this report secret. The Ministry of Defence refused requests to release it, and the Central Information Commission, the body that hears appeals under the Right to Information Act, examined the report in 2008 and decided it should stay secret for national security reasons. Parliament debated declassifying it again in 2017. The report remains classified; no declassification is recorded in the sources.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
After India lost the 1962 border war with China, the Army prepared an internal review in 1963, known as the Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report, to find out why India was defeated. The government has kept this report secret. The Ministry of Defence refused requests to release it, and the Central Information Commission, the body that hears appeals under the Right to Information Act, examined the report in 2008 and decided it should stay secret for national security reasons. Parliament debated declassifying it again in 2017. The report remains classified; no declassification is recorded in the sources.
Who did it
1962 India-China war and the forward policy
The evidence
The Henderson Brooks report was prepared in 1963 and examined reasons for India's defeat in the 1962 border war with China. [1]
The Ministry of Defence refused Kuldip Nayar's request for the report, citing Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act 2005. [3]
The Central Information Commission inspected the original report and found disclosure would seriously compromise security and India-China relations. [3]
The report was not recommended for declassification in the national security interest, as stated in Rajya Sabha on 27 February 2008. [3]
The Central Information Commission found inordinate delay in processing the matter and directed a show-cause for penalty by 24 November 2008. [3]
Where it stands today
The Central Information Commission complaint concluded with a decision not to disclose the report; the report remains classified. A penalty show-cause was pending as of the decision. No later declassification is recorded in the sources.
What was done
The Ministry of Defence refused to declassify the Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report. The Central Information Commission examined the original report and upheld that refusal, finding that disclosure would seriously compromise security and India-China relations. Parliament's Lok Sabha debated the need to declassify it in 2017, but no declassification followed in the sources.
What it meant for the country
The official findings on the 1962 defeat remain secret, as the Ministry of Defence and the Central Information Commission refused to release the Henderson Brooks report.
The Henderson Brooks report remains classified; the Ministry of Defence told Parliament in 2008 that it had not been recommended for declassification in the national security interest. [3]
The Central Information Commission decided in 2008 that releasing the report would seriously compromise security and India-China relations, so the public and Parliament have not received the official findings on the 1962 defeat. [3]
A 2017 Lok Sabha debate again called for declassification, but the sources do not record any declassification. [1]
Step by step
1963 The Henderson Brooks report was prepared for the Government of India, going into the reasons for India's defeat in the 1962 border war with China. [1]
2006-02-18 Shri Kuldip Nayar moved a complaint before the Central Information Commission after the Ministry of Defence regretted his request for a copy of the Henderson Brooks report. [3]
2008-02-27 In reply to Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 141, the Raksha Mantri (Defence Minister) said the report had not been recommended to be declassified in the national security interest. [3]
2008-07-03 Shri Kuldip Nayar submitted a rejoinder, saying the report was already 46 years old. [3]
2008-09-19 The Central Information Commission inspected the original report, including its conclusions on pages 199 to 222, and decided that disclosure would seriously compromise security and the relationship between India and China; it found the report not severable and upheld non-disclosure. It also directed a show-cause on penalty for delay, to be answered by 24 November 2008. [3]
2017-03-10 In a Lok Sabha debate, members called for declassifying the Henderson Brooks report, describing it as a classified document on the 1962 war and referring to it as the 'Himalayan Blunder'. [1]
Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report and the forward policy
The Henderson Brooks report was a study prepared for the Indian Government in 1963 by Lieutenant General Henderson Brooks about why India lost the 1962 border war with China. The Government classified it top secret and has refused to release it. Former MP Kuldip Nayar asked for it under the Right to Information Act, and the Central Information Commission — the body that decides appeals on information requests — inspected the original report and decided in 2008 not to order its release, saying it would harm security and India-China relations. Members of the Lok Sabha again demanded declassification on 10 March 2017, but the sources record no release. The parliamentary record on the 'forward policy' is not covered by the retrieved documents.
Closed without a verdict
Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report on the 1962 war
1962
Harm to the nation
Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report and the forward policy
The Henderson Brooks report was a study prepared for the Indian Government in 1963 by Lieutenant General Henderson Brooks about why India lost the 1962 border war with China. The Government classified it top secret and has refused to release it. Former MP Kuldip Nayar asked for it under the Right to Information Act, and the Central Information Commission — the body that decides appeals on information requests — inspected the original report and decided in 2008 not to order its release, saying it would harm security and India-China relations. Members of the Lok Sabha again demanded declassification on 10 March 2017, but the sources record no release. The parliamentary record on the 'forward policy' is not covered by the retrieved documents.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
The Henderson Brooks report was a study prepared for the Indian Government in 1963 by Lieutenant General Henderson Brooks about why India lost the 1962 border war with China. The Government classified it top secret and has refused to release it. Former MP Kuldip Nayar asked for it under the Right to Information Act, and the Central Information Commission — the body that decides appeals on information requests — inspected the original report and decided in 2008 not to order its release, saying it would harm security and India-China relations. Members of the Lok Sabha again demanded declassification on 10 March 2017, but the sources record no release. The parliamentary record on the 'forward policy' is not covered by the retrieved documents.
Who did it
Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report on the 1962 war
The evidence
The Henderson Brooks report was prepared by Lieutenant General Henderson Brooks for the Government of India in 1963 and went into the reasons for India's defeat in the 1962 border war with China. [1][2]
The report has remained classified as 'top secret'; the Ministry of Defence told the Central Information Commission that the information sought could not be provided. [2]
On 27 February 2008, in reply to Unstarred Question No. 141 by MP Shri Rajiv Chandrashekhar, the Defence Minister said the report had not been recommended for declassification in the national security interest because of its sensitivity and security implications. [2]
The Central Information Commission inspected the original report, including the conclusions at pages 199 to 222 of the main report, and issued a decision notice that disclosure would seriously compromise both security and the relationship between India and China, as the India-China border along India's North East is still a live issue under negotiation. [2]
The Commission also examined the report from the point of view of severability under Section 10(1) of the Right to Information Act, that is, whether parts of it could be released. [2]
Where it stands today
The Right to Information complaint of Shri Kuldip Nayar was decided by the Central Information Commission against disclosure, upholding the Ministry of Defence's refusal. The report itself remains classified; no appeal against the Commission's decision and no subsequent release are recorded in the sources. The demand raised in the Lok Sabha on 10 March 2017 did not result in any documented declassification.
What was done
The Ministry of Defence kept the Henderson Brooks report classified as top secret and refused access under the Right to Information Act. The Central Information Commission inspected the original report, including its conclusions at pages 199 to 222, and decided that disclosure would seriously compromise security and the relationship between India and China, so it upheld the refusal. In February 2008 the Defence Minister told Parliament the report had not been recommended for declassification in the national security interest.
What it meant for the country
The official internal account of the 1962 war's defeat has stayed secret for over five decades: the Right to Information request was refused, the Central Information Commission endorsed keeping the report classified, and Parliament was still demanding declassification in 2017 with no release
The public has remained unable to see the official internal account of the 1962 war: the Ministry of Defence classed the report as top secret and refused an RTI request, and the Central Information Commission decided the report must stay secret because disclosure would seriously compromise security and the relationship between India and China. [2]
By 10 March 2017, 54 years after the report was prepared, members of the Lok Sabha were still demanding its declassification, and no release is documented in the sources. [1][2]
Step by step
1963 Lieutenant General Henderson Brooks submitted the report to the Government of India; it went into the reasons for India's defeat in the 1962 border war with China. [1][2]
2006-02-18 Former MP Shri Kuldip Nayar moved a complaint before the Central Information Commission after the Ministry of Defence regretted his request for a copy of the report. [2]
2008-02-27 In a written reply to Unstarred Question No. 141 by MP Shri Rajiv Chandrashekhar, the Defence Minister (Raksha Mantri) said the report on the 1962 Indo-Sino war still remained classified and, considering the sensitivity of the information and its security implications, it had not been recommended to be declassified in the national security interest. [2]
2008-07-03 Shri Kuldip Nayar submitted a rejoinder noting the report was already 46 years old and arguing he did not see how disclosure would prejudicially affect sovereignty, integrity, security or foreign relations. [2]
2008-11 After a presentation by Colonel Raj Shukla, the Commission inspected the original report, including the conclusions contained in pages 199 to 222 of the main report, and issued a decision notice: the India-China border, particularly along the North East parts of India, is still a live issue with ongoing negotiations, and disclosure of the report would seriously compromise both security and the relationship between India and China. [2]
2008-11-06 The Central Information Commission heard the matter; the Ministry's position was that the information sought was classified as 'top secret' and could not be provided. [2]
2008-11-24 The Commission directed the Ministry of Defence to produce the complete relevant records in writing by 24 November 2008 so that it could examine whether the information merited exemption under Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act. [2]
2017-03-10 In the Sixteenth Lok Sabha, members Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab and Shri Sharad Tripathi raised the demand to declassify the Henderson Brooks report, describing one account of the war as the 'Himalayan Blunder' and saying there is a need to declassify materials that were declared classified at a certain point of time. [1]
The Naga Hills-Tuensang Area was a tribal area inside the state of Assam. In July 1960, the Government of India and the leaders of the Naga People's Convention agreed that this area should become a separate state, and the Nagaland leaders set out a 16-point agreement as the basis for it. Parliament then passed the State of Nagaland Act, 1962, which created Nagaland as the 16th state of India, and the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, which added Article 371A to give Nagaland special protection over Naga religious and social practices, customary law, administration of justice and ownership of land. Both the Act and Article 371A stand as law today.
A law or decision by the government
Naga community and statehood
1962
Benefit to the nation
State of Nagaland Act, 1962
The Naga Hills-Tuensang Area was a tribal area inside the state of Assam. In July 1960, the Government of India and the leaders of the Naga People's Convention agreed that this area should become a separate state, and the Nagaland leaders set out a 16-point agreement as the basis for it. Parliament then passed the State of Nagaland Act, 1962, which created Nagaland as the 16th state of India, and the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, which added Article 371A to give Nagaland special protection over Naga religious and social practices, customary law, administration of justice and ownership of land. Both the Act and Article 371A stand as law today.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Naga Hills-Tuensang Area was a tribal area inside the state of Assam. In July 1960, the Government of India and the leaders of the Naga People's Convention agreed that this area should become a separate state, and the Nagaland leaders set out a 16-point agreement as the basis for it. Parliament then passed the State of Nagaland Act, 1962, which created Nagaland as the 16th state of India, and the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, which added Article 371A to give Nagaland special protection over Naga religious and social practices, customary law, administration of justice and ownership of land. Both the Act and Article 371A stand as law today.
Who did it
Naga community and statehood
The evidence
In July 1960, the Government of India, in pursuance of an agreement with the leaders of the Naga People's Convention, decided that the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area (Nagaland), then a Part B Tribal Area within the State of Assam, should be formed into a separate State in the Union of India. [3][5][10]
Section 3 of the State of Nagaland Act, 1962 formed a new State of Nagaland comprising the territories of the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area, which ceased to form part of the State of Assam. [1][2][4]
The State of Nagaland was to consist of three districts: the Kohima district, Mokokchung district and Tuensang district. [2][4]
The Act inserted a 16th entry in the First Schedule to the Constitution for the territories specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the State of Nagaland Act, 1962. [1]
The Act provided for a common High Court for Assam and Nagaland, to be called the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, and that the whole State of Nagaland would form one parliamentary constituency. [1]
Where it stands today
The State of Nagaland Act, 1962 and Article 371A of the Constitution stand as law. No pending proceedings appear in the record.
What was done
Parliament passed the State of Nagaland Act, 1962, forming the State of Nagaland out of the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area, which ceased to be part of Assam. Parliament also passed the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, which inserted Article 371A into the Constitution. These followed the July 1960 agreement between the Government of India and the leaders of the Naga People's Convention, recorded in a 16-point agreement.
What it meant for the country
The record shows a gain for the Naga community: they obtained their own state and constitutional protection over their customary law and land.
Nagaland became the 16th state of the Union of India; the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area ceased to be part of the State of Assam. [1]
Acts of Parliament on Naga religious or social practices, Naga customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice according to Naga customary law, and ownership and transfer of land and its resources cannot apply to Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland so decides, as provided in Article 371A(1)(a) of the Constitution. [11][12]
Nagaland, which had existed as a tribal region within the State of Assam, was given the status of a state and specific constitutional provisions, with special protection provided for in Article 371A. [10]
Step by step
1960-07 The Government of India reached an agreement with the leaders of the Naga People's Convention that the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area, then a Part B tribal area within Assam, was to be formed into a separate State in the Union of India. The agreement was recorded in a 16-point (Sixteen Point) agreement, which later became the basis for inserting Article 371A in the Constitution. [3][5][6][8][10]
1962 The Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 inserted Article 371A into Part XXI of the Constitution. Article 371A provided that no Act of Parliament on Naga religious or social practices, Naga customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice according to Naga customary law, or ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall apply to Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland so decides. It also gave the Governor special responsibility for law and order, responsibility for funds made available to the new State, and responsibility for carrying on the administration of Tuensang district for ten years, with a Regional Council to supervise Village, Range and Area Councils there. [5][11][12]
1962-09-04 The State of Nagaland Act, 1962 was enacted by Parliament in the Thirteenth Year of the Republic of India and published in the Gazette of India. The Act provided for the formation of the State of Nagaland, a common High Court for Assam and Nagaland, and the repeal of the State of Nagaland (Transitional Provisions) Regulation, 1961. As required by Article 3 of the Constitution, the Bill had been referred by the President to the Legislature of the State of Assam for its views. [3]
1963-12-01 The appointed day for the formation of the new State was 1 December 1963. From that day the State of Nagaland came into being, comprising the territories of the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area, which ceased to form part of Assam. The State consisted of three districts: Kohima district, Mokokchung district and Tuensang district. A 16th entry for the State of Nagaland was inserted in the First Schedule to the Constitution. [1][2][4]
The 1962 war and the Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report
After the 1962 border war with China, the Indian Army prepared an internal review, known as the Henderson Brooks report, to examine why India lost. The government has kept that report secret: the Ministry of Defence and Army Headquarters refused to release it under the Right to Information Act, and in 2008 the Central Information Commission, the body that decides appeals under that Act, after looking at the original, agreed no part could be disclosed. In 2017 a member of Parliament again asked for it to be made public, but the report remains classified.
The 1962 war and the Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report
After the 1962 border war with China, the Indian Army prepared an internal review, known as the Henderson Brooks report, to examine why India lost. The government has kept that report secret: the Ministry of Defence and Army Headquarters refused to release it under the Right to Information Act, and in 2008 the Central Information Commission, the body that decides appeals under that Act, after looking at the original, agreed no part could be disclosed. In 2017 a member of Parliament again asked for it to be made public, but the report remains classified.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
After the 1962 border war with China, the Indian Army prepared an internal review, known as the Henderson Brooks report, to examine why India lost. The government has kept that report secret: the Ministry of Defence and Army Headquarters refused to release it under the Right to Information Act, and in 2008 the Central Information Commission, the body that decides appeals under that Act, after looking at the original, agreed no part could be disclosed. In 2017 a member of Parliament again asked for it to be made public, but the report remains classified.
The Henderson Brooks report was prepared in 1963 for the Government and examined reasons for India's defeat in the 1962 border war with China. [1]
The report is sometimes referred to as the 'Himalayan Blunder'. [1]
In 2008, the Ministry of Defence refused to provide a copy under the Right to Information Act, invoking Section 8(1)(a); Army Headquarters had said the document is classified and sensitive. [13]
On 27 February 2008, the Rajya Sabha was told the report had not been recommended for declassification in the national security interest. [13]
The Central Information Commission inspected the original report, including conclusions on pages 199 to 222, and found no part could be disclosed at that stage. [13]
Where it stands today
The 2008 Central Information Commission proceeding has concluded with refusal to disclose; no appeal or later decision is documented. The 2017 Lok Sabha request appears to have had no recorded outcome. The report remains classified.
What was done
The Ministry of Defence, acting on advice from Army Headquarters, classified the Henderson Brooks report as top secret and refused to disclose it under the Right to Information Act. The Central Information Commission inspected the original report and decided that no part of it could be made public, on the grounds that the India-China border is still under negotiation and disclosure could compromise security and bilateral relations.
What it meant for the country
The documents do not establish concrete consequences for the country, except that the official review of a major military defeat remains secret and the public has not had access to it.
The Central Information Commission's decision kept the report's conclusions closed to citizens, so there has been no official public account from the Henderson Brooks report of the Army's operational failures or the political direction of the 1962 war. [13]
Parliament's 2017 debate shows that the demand for disclosure remained unresolved more than five decades after the report was prepared. [1]
Step by step
2008-02-27 In the Rajya Sabha, the Defence Minister stated that the Henderson Brooks report had not been recommended for declassification because of its sensitivity and security implications. [13]
2008-11-06 The Central Information Commission heard a complaint by journalist Kuldip Nayar seeking the report; the Ministry of Defence's Central Public Information Officer said Army Headquarters had told him the document was classified top secret and the information was refused under Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act. [13]
2017-03-10 In the Lok Sabha, a member called for declassification of the Henderson Brooks report, describing it as the report of the 1962 war sometimes called 'Himalayan Blunder', and asking that all such classified materials be made available to the public. [1]
Until 1963, High Court judges in India had to retire at sixty years of age, and a High Court could not generally issue certain court orders against authorities located outside its territory. Parliament changed the Constitution by enacting an amendment on 5 October 1963 that raised the retirement age of High Court judges to sixty-two years and allowed the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the President's prior consent, to ask retired judges to sit and act in that High Court. The amendment also widened the High Courts' power to issue writs—court orders—where the dispute arose within their territory, and it remains in force as the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.
A law or decision by the government
Judiciary and constitutional amendment
1963
Benefit to the nation
Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963
Until 1963, High Court judges in India had to retire at sixty years of age, and a High Court could not generally issue certain court orders against authorities located outside its territory. Parliament changed the Constitution by enacting an amendment on 5 October 1963 that raised the retirement age of High Court judges to sixty-two years and allowed the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the President's prior consent, to ask retired judges to sit and act in that High Court. The amendment also widened the High Courts' power to issue writs—court orders—where the dispute arose within their territory, and it remains in force as the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Until 1963, High Court judges in India had to retire at sixty years of age, and a High Court could not generally issue certain court orders against authorities located outside its territory. Parliament changed the Constitution by enacting an amendment on 5 October 1963 that raised the retirement age of High Court judges to sixty-two years and allowed the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the President's prior consent, to ask retired judges to sit and act in that High Court. The amendment also widened the High Courts' power to issue writs—court orders—where the dispute arose within their territory, and it remains in force as the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.
Who did it
Judiciary and constitutional amendment
The evidence
The short title of the measure is the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. [2][9]
Article 217 was amended by replacing 'sixty years' with 'sixty-two years' for the retirement age of High Court judges. [7]
Article 224(3) was amended to replace 'sixty years' with 'sixty-two years' for additional judges. [7]
A new Article 224A allowed the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the previous consent of the President, to request a former judge of that court or another High Court to sit and act as a judge; the person so requested gets allowances determined by the President and is not otherwise deemed to be a judge, and cannot be required to sit without consent. [7][9]
Where it stands today
The amendment stands enacted and in force. No pending proceeding or challenge is recorded in the documents.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 on 5 October 1963. In it, Parliament replaced the words 'sixty years' with 'sixty-two years' in Article 217 and Article 224(3) so that High Court judges and additional judges retire later. Parliament also inserted Article 224A, under which a High Court Chief Justice may, with the President's previous consent, request a person who has held office as a judge of that court or any other High Court to sit and act as a judge, and the person receives allowances fixed by the President but is not otherwise deemed to be a judge of that court unless he consents.
What it meant for the country
The amendment's documented consequences were beneficial to the legal system, chiefly by widening High Courts' power to issue remedies against outside authorities and giving retired judges a route to sit in High Courts.
High Court judges gained two more years on the bench, as the retirement age was raised from sixty to sixty-two years. [7]
People within a High Court's territory could seek a court order against a government, authority or person located outside that territory if the cause of action arose wholly or partly within it, increasing the reach of High Court remedies. [6][7]
The judiciary gained a flexible way to use experienced retired judges: a Chief Justice could, with presidential consent, ask them to sit and act in a High Court without making them regular judges. [7][9]
The amendment shifted the determination of a Supreme Court judge's age from the constitutional text to a process set by Parliament by law. [7]
Step by step
1955-11 Some proposals later contained in the Fifteenth Amendment Bill had been included in a Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha in November 1955; that bill lapsed except for one proposal, which became the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955. [7]
1963-10-05 The Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 is dated 5 October 1963. It raised the retirement age of High Court judges from sixty to sixty-two years, enabled retired judges to sit and act in High Courts, and made other changes. [9][7]
In 1963, Parliament changed India's Constitution to make every candidate and holder of public office swear to uphold India's sovereignty and integrity, and to allow laws that restrict freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and forming associations in the interests of that sovereignty and integrity. The change followed recommendations by a committee on national integration. The amendment stands as part of the Constitution.
A law or decision by the government
Sovereignty and integrity restrictions
1963
Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963
In 1963, Parliament changed India's Constitution to make every candidate and holder of public office swear to uphold India's sovereignty and integrity, and to allow laws that restrict freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and forming associations in the interests of that sovereignty and integrity. The change followed recommendations by a committee on national integration. The amendment stands as part of the Constitution.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1963, Parliament changed India's Constitution to make every candidate and holder of public office swear to uphold India's sovereignty and integrity, and to allow laws that restrict freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and forming associations in the interests of that sovereignty and integrity. The change followed recommendations by a committee on national integration. The amendment stands as part of the Constitution.
Who did it
Sovereignty and integrity restrictions
The evidence
The Statement of Objects and Reasons says the Committee on National Integration and Regionalism recommended amending Article 19 to preserve the integrity and sovereignty of the Union. [1]
The Act enabled the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the rights under Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. [1][8][10]
Article 84 and Article 173, as amended, require a person to be a citizen of India and to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation before a person authorised by the Election Commission. [1][5][6]
The Act required every candidate for membership of Parliament or a State Legislature, Union and State Ministers, Members of Parliament and State Legislatures, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India to take an oath to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. [1][4]
The amended oath forms include the words 'that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India' for candidates and members of Parliament and State Legislatures. [1][4][7]
Where it stands today
No court case or other proceeding is recorded in the sources. The amendment remains in force as part of the Constitution.
What was done
Parliament passed the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. It inserted 'sovereignty and integrity of India' into the grounds on which the state may restrict free speech, peaceful assembly and forming associations, and it changed the oaths for candidates and holders of public office to require them to uphold that sovereignty and integrity.
What it meant for the country
The sources show the Constitution was changed to allow restrictions on speech, assembly and association and to require oaths from office-holders, but they do not record any concrete effect on people, money or institutions.
The change means the State may now enact laws limiting what citizens can say, where they can assemble peacefully, and which unions or associations they can form, if the law is reasonably in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. [1][8][10]
Candidates and holders of public office, including ministers, legislators, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General, are now bound by an oath to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. [1][4]
Step by step
1963 Parliament enacted the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. [1][3]
1963 The Act amended Article 19: clauses (2), (3) and (4) were changed so that reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly and association could be imposed in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. [1][8][10]
1963 The Act replaced clause (a) of Article 84 and Article 173 to require candidates for Parliament and State Legislatures to make an oath or affirmation before someone authorised by the Election Commission. [1][5][6]
1963 The Third Schedule oath forms were amended: Forms I, IV, V and VIII added the words 'that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India', and Forms III and VII were replaced with separate oaths for candidates and members of Parliament and State Legislatures. [1][4][7]
Das Commission inquiry into charges against Pratap Singh Kairon, 1963–64
Pratap Singh Kairon was the Chief Minister of Punjab. After allegations against him by Devi Lal and others, the Ministry of Home Affairs appointed a commission of inquiry on 1 November 1963, with a report due by 1 February 1964. The commission's report, known as the Das Commission Report, was critical of corruption and misuse of office during his tenure. By January 1965 Kairon was described as a former Chief Minister. The inquiry stands as an official finding; no criminal conviction is shown in these sources.
An official inquiry found fault
Pratap Singh Kairon, Punjab Chief Minister
1963
Harm to the nation
Das Commission inquiry into charges against Pratap Singh Kairon, 1963–64
Pratap Singh Kairon was the Chief Minister of Punjab. After allegations against him by Devi Lal and others, the Ministry of Home Affairs appointed a commission of inquiry on 1 November 1963, with a report due by 1 February 1964. The commission's report, known as the Das Commission Report, was critical of corruption and misuse of office during his tenure. By January 1965 Kairon was described as a former Chief Minister. The inquiry stands as an official finding; no criminal conviction is shown in these sources.
An official inquiry found fault
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A government auditor or an inquiry commission examined this and reported what went wrong. This is a report, not a court verdict.
What happened
Pratap Singh Kairon was the Chief Minister of Punjab. After allegations against him by Devi Lal and others, the Ministry of Home Affairs appointed a commission of inquiry on 1 November 1963, with a report due by 1 February 1964. The commission's report, known as the Das Commission Report, was critical of corruption and misuse of office during his tenure. By January 1965 Kairon was described as a former Chief Minister. The inquiry stands as an official finding; no criminal conviction is shown in these sources.
Who did it
Pratap Singh Kairon, Punjab Chief Minister
The evidence
Pratap Singh Kairon was the Chief Minister of Punjab at the time of the inquiry. [8]
The Ministry of Home Affairs appointed the commission by Notification No. 3109 dated 1 November 1963. [8]
The commission was to report before 1 February 1964 on allegations by Devi Lal and others. [8]
The Das Commission Report was critical in examining charges of corruption and misuse of power during Kairon's tenure and identified deep-rooted corruption in public offices. [5]
By 6 January 1965, Kairon was described as former Chief Minister of Punjab. [13]
Where it stands today
The commission of inquiry concluded with a report. No criminal conviction of Pratap Singh Kairon is shown in these sources. The Allahabad High Court's order of 6 January 1965 for further inquiry into offences under sections 193/195 and 211 IPC is the last proceeding shown; its outcome is not in the sources.
What was done
The Ministry of Home Affairs appointed a Commission of Inquiry on 1 November 1963 to inquire into allegations against Chief Minister Kairon by Devi Lal and others, with a report due by 1 February 1964. The commission examined charges of corruption and misuse of office and produced a critical report. Kairon was no longer Chief Minister by 6 January 1965.
What it meant for the country
The record shows harm: a Supreme Court judgment found the Chief Minister's action against a civil surgeon was mala fide and set it aside, and the Das Commission Report identified deep-rooted corruption in public offices.
The Supreme Court set aside government orders against a civil surgeon, finding they were vitiated by mala fides and motivated by an improper purpose; the Chief Minister was the functionary who initiated the proceedings. [2]
The Allahabad High Court found prima facie material that Kairon was responsible for false prosecution and arrest of a citizen, resulting in deprivation of liberty, and ordered further inquiry. [13]
The Das Commission Report identified deep-rooted corruption in public offices and proposed anti-corruption frameworks. [5]
Step by step
1963-09-02 The Supreme Court in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab held that orders revoking a civil surgeon's leave, suspending him and ordering an inquiry were vitiated by mala fides and motivated by an improper purpose; it said the Chief Minister was the functionary who initiated the proceedings. [2]
1963-11-01 The Ministry of Home Affairs, by Notification No. 3109, appointed a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into and report before 1 February 1964 on allegations against Sardar Partap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister of Punjab, by Shri Devi Lal and certain other persons. [8]
1964-02-01 The commission was to report by this date; a copy of the Das Commission Report describes it as critical in examining charges of corruption and misuse of power during Kairon's tenure and as identifying deep-rooted corruption in public offices. [8][5]
1965-01-06 The Allahabad High Court in R.P. Kapoor vs Pratap Singh Kairon ordered further inquiry into offences under sections 193/195 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against Kairon, after finding prima facie material that he was responsible for false prosecution and arrest of a citizen. [13]
Kharak Singh lived in Uttar Pradesh and, after he was discharged in a dacoity case in 1941, the police placed him under surveillance under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, including night visits to his home. He asked the Supreme Court of India to strike down those police powers. On 18 December 1962 the Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the regulation allowing police to make night visits to a suspect's home went against the protection of personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution and had no law supporting it, so it could not continue; the Court left the other watch measures such as secret picketing and inquiries untouched. The decision stood for the proposition that privacy was not an express constitutional right, but later Supreme Court decisions recognised privacy as part of personal liberty, partly departing from this ruling.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Police surveillance and privacy
1963
Mixed
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1963
Kharak Singh lived in Uttar Pradesh and, after he was discharged in a dacoity case in 1941, the police placed him under surveillance under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, including night visits to his home. He asked the Supreme Court of India to strike down those police powers. On 18 December 1962 the Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the regulation allowing police to make night visits to a suspect's home went against the protection of personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution and had no law supporting it, so it could not continue; the Court left the other watch measures such as secret picketing and inquiries untouched. The decision stood for the proposition that privacy was not an express constitutional right, but later Supreme Court decisions recognised privacy as part of personal liberty, partly departing from this ruling.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
Kharak Singh lived in Uttar Pradesh and, after he was discharged in a dacoity case in 1941, the police placed him under surveillance under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, including night visits to his home. He asked the Supreme Court of India to strike down those police powers. On 18 December 1962 the Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the regulation allowing police to make night visits to a suspect's home went against the protection of personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution and had no law supporting it, so it could not continue; the Court left the other watch measures such as secret picketing and inquiries untouched. The decision stood for the proposition that privacy was not an express constitutional right, but later Supreme Court decisions recognised privacy as part of personal liberty, partly departing from this ruling.
Who did it
Police surveillance and privacy
The evidence
Kharak Singh was challaned in a dacoity case in 1941 and discharged; the police then opened a 'history-sheet' against him and placed him under surveillance under Chapter XX of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, including Regulation 236. [10][6]
Regulation 236 defined surveillance as consisting of one or more of: (a) secret picketing of the house or approaches to the house of suspects; (b) domiciliary visits at night; (c) periodical inquiries into repute, habits, associations, income, expenses and occupation; (d) reporting by constables and chaukidars of movements and absence from home; (e) verification of movements and absences by means of inquiry slips; (f) collection and record on a history-sheet of all information bearing on conduct. [10]
The case was decided by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court on 18 December 1962; the citation is AIR 1963 SC 1295, (1964) 1 SCR 332. [5][6][10]
The majority, speaking through Justice Ayyangar, held that the part of Regulation 236(b) allowing domiciliary visits was unconstitutional because it violated Article 21 and there was no law on which it could be justified. [10][3]
The majority held that the remaining surveillance measures did not infringe the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) or Article 21. [10][1]
Where it stands today
The challenge to the Uttar Pradesh surveillance rules concluded with the 18 December 1962 judgment. Regulation 236(b) on night domiciliary visits was struck down. In 1975 the Supreme Court in Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh upheld similar Madhya Pradesh regulations because they had the force of law, and later Supreme Court decisions recognising privacy as part of Article 21 partly overruled the majority's view in Kharak Singh that the Constitution did not expressly protect privacy. The rest of Regulation 236's surveillance measures remained upheld as of the 1962 decision.
What was done
The Supreme Court of India, sitting as a seven-judge bench, ruled that clause (b) of Regulation 236 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations — providing for domiciliary visits at night — violated Article 21 of the Constitution and could not be justified by any law, so it was struck down. The same Court refused to strike down the other surveillance measures in the regulation. Justices Subba Rao and Shah dissented and would have declared the entire Regulation 236 invalid.
What it meant for the country
The judgment protected people from night police visits into their homes but left other intrusive watch measures standing, and its denial of a constitutional privacy right was later reversed.
The Supreme Court ruled that police night visits to a person's home under Regulation 236(b) violated the personal liberty guarantee in Article 21 and had no legal basis, so that practice could not be continued against citizens. [10][3]
The Court left in place the other surveillance measures — secret picketing, periodical inquiries into habits and income, reporting and verification of movements, and history-sheets — although Justices Subba Rao and Shah would have declared the whole of Regulation 236 invalid for infringing both freedom of movement and personal liberty. [10][1]
Later Supreme Court decisions recognised privacy as part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, overturning Kharak Singh's majority position that the Constitution did not expressly protect privacy. [3][13]
Step by step
1941 Kharak Singh was challaned in a case of dacoity but was discharged; the police later opened a 'history-sheet' against him and placed him under surveillance under Chapter XX of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, including Regulation 236. [10]
1962-12-18 A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment (reported as AIR 1963 SC 1295, (1964) 1 SCR 332). The majority held that the part of Regulation 236(b) permitting domiciliary visits at night violated Article 21 because there was no law justifying it, while the other surveillance measures listed in Regulation 236 were not struck down. Justices Subba Rao and Shah dissented and held the entire Regulation 236 unconstitutional as infringing both Article 19(1) and Article 21. [5][6][10][14]
1975-03-18 In Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court upheld similar Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations 855 and 856 because, unlike the U.P. regulation, they had the force of law; the Court noted Kharak Singh's holding that Regulation 236(b) was bad for lack of a law. [2]
India's Constitution allowed English to be used for official work for fifteen years after it came into force, after which Hindi was to take over. Parliament passed the Official Languages Act, 1963 to let English continue alongside Hindi for official work of the Union government and in Parliament beyond that fifteen-year period, with special protection for states that had not adopted Hindi. The law is still in force, and its key safeguard is that English cannot be ended for official purposes until every state that has not adopted Hindi, and then Parliament, passes a resolution to discontinue it.
A law or decision by the government
Use of Hindi and English in official work
1963
Benefit to the nation
Official Languages Act, 1963
India's Constitution allowed English to be used for official work for fifteen years after it came into force, after which Hindi was to take over. Parliament passed the Official Languages Act, 1963 to let English continue alongside Hindi for official work of the Union government and in Parliament beyond that fifteen-year period, with special protection for states that had not adopted Hindi. The law is still in force, and its key safeguard is that English cannot be ended for official purposes until every state that has not adopted Hindi, and then Parliament, passes a resolution to discontinue it.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
India's Constitution allowed English to be used for official work for fifteen years after it came into force, after which Hindi was to take over. Parliament passed the Official Languages Act, 1963 to let English continue alongside Hindi for official work of the Union government and in Parliament beyond that fifteen-year period, with special protection for states that had not adopted Hindi. The law is still in force, and its key safeguard is that English cannot be ended for official purposes until every state that has not adopted Hindi, and then Parliament, passes a resolution to discontinue it.
Who did it
Use of Hindi and English in official work
The evidence
Section 3 of the Act allows English to continue to be used, in addition to Hindi, for all official purposes of the Union and for business in Parliament after the fifteen-year period, and requires English for communication between the Union and a state that has not adopted Hindi as its official language. [1][6]
Section 3(5) says the provisions continuing English remain in force until resolutions for discontinuance are passed by the legislatures of all states that have not adopted Hindi, and then by each House of Parliament after considering those resolutions. [1][6]
Section 4 provides for a Committee on Official Language of thirty members, twenty from the Lok Sabha and ten from the Rajya Sabha, to review progress in the use of Hindi for official purposes of the Union and report to the President, who must lay the report before Parliament and send it to all state governments. [4][1][8][11]
Section 5 provides that a Hindi translation of a central Act, ordinance, order, rule, regulation or bye-law published under the authority of the President in the Official Gazette is deemed to be the authoritative text in Hindi. [2]
Section 6 allows the Governor of a state to publish a Hindi translation of state Acts and ordinances in the Official Gazette, and that translation is deemed to be the authoritative text in Hindi where the state legislature has prescribed a language other than Hindi for its Acts. [5]
Where it stands today
The Official Languages Act, 1963 remains in force as enacted. The sources record a 2020 Lok Sabha request to amend the Act, but no court challenge to the Act itself is among the sources; a 1984 Madras High Court case, M. Ranka v State of Tamil Nadu, is recorded in the sources as dealing with Tamil Nadu's own language laws.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Official Languages Act, 1963 (Act 19 of 1963), which allowed English to continue for all official purposes of the Union and for business in Parliament beyond the fifteen-year period set in the Constitution. The Act also required both Hindi and English for many official documents and communications, created a Committee on Official Language to review the progress of Hindi, and provided for authorised Hindi translations of central and state laws.
What it meant for the country
The Act protected non-Hindi-speaking states and central government employees by keeping English available and by making any move away from English depend on resolutions passed by all non-Hindi state legislatures and then by Parliament.
English must be used for communication between the Union government and any state that has not adopted Hindi as its official language, so such states are not forced to correspond in Hindi. [1]
Both Hindi and English must be used for central government resolutions, rules, notifications, reports, press communiques, papers laid before Parliament, contracts, licences, permits, notices and tender forms. [1][3]
Rules made by the central government must ensure that persons serving the Union who know only Hindi or only English are not placed at a disadvantage for lacking the other language. [1]
The provisions continuing English remain in force until the legislatures of all states that have not adopted Hindi pass resolutions to discontinue English, and after considering those, each House of Parliament also passes such a resolution. [1]
Step by step
1963 Parliament passed the Official Languages Act, 1963 (Act 19 of 1963), authorising the continued use of English for official purposes of the Union and in Parliament beyond the fifteen-year period from the commencement of the Constitution. [10][1]
2020-09-22 In the Lok Sabha, a matter was laid requesting that the Official Languages Act, 1963 be amended to remove difficulties in promoting Hindi in government work. [7]
The Ninth Schedule is a list in the Constitution; laws placed on that list cannot be struck down for violating fundamental rights. In 1964, Parliament passed the Seventeenth Amendment, which added 44 state land reform laws to the list and changed the rule on acquiring estates. The Supreme Court first held the amendment invalid in 1967, but later rulings upheld all such additions made before 24 April 1973, so the 1964 amendment stands.
A law or decision by the government
Land reform laws and the Ninth Schedule
1964
Harm to the nation
Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964
The Ninth Schedule is a list in the Constitution; laws placed on that list cannot be struck down for violating fundamental rights. In 1964, Parliament passed the Seventeenth Amendment, which added 44 state land reform laws to the list and changed the rule on acquiring estates. The Supreme Court first held the amendment invalid in 1967, but later rulings upheld all such additions made before 24 April 1973, so the 1964 amendment stands.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Ninth Schedule is a list in the Constitution; laws placed on that list cannot be struck down for violating fundamental rights. In 1964, Parliament passed the Seventeenth Amendment, which added 44 state land reform laws to the list and changed the rule on acquiring estates. The Supreme Court first held the amendment invalid in 1967, but later rulings upheld all such additions made before 24 April 1973, so the 1964 amendment stands.
Who did it
Land reform laws and the Ninth Schedule
The evidence
The Seventeenth Amendment amended Article 31A and the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. [6]
It added 44 state land reform enactments to the Ninth Schedule. [6]
The purpose was to remove uncertainty or doubt about the validity of state land reform enactments. [3]
In Golak Nath, the Supreme Court held the Seventeenth Amendment void insofar as it took away or abridged fundamental rights. [11]
Where it stands today
No pending challenge is recorded in the sources. The amendment stands as valid under the rule that pre-24 April 1973 Ninth Schedule amendments are constitutional.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. It amended Article 31A and added 44 state land reform enactments to the Ninth Schedule so that their validity could not be challenged on fundamental-rights grounds.
What it meant for the country
The amendment cut off court challenges to 44 state land reform laws on fundamental-rights grounds, as the documents record.
The amendment removed the ability of people affected by 44 state land reform laws to challenge those laws in court for violating the rights to equality and property (Articles 14, 19 and 31). [6][9]
The Supreme Court's 1967 ruling that the amendment was void was later overtaken by the rule upholding pre-1973 Ninth Schedule amendments, so the shield remains. [8][11]
Step by step
1964-06-20 The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 took effect, amending Article 31A and adding 44 state land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule. [6][8]
1967-02-27 In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held the Seventeenth Amendment void insofar as it took away or abridged fundamental rights. [9][11]
1973-04-24 As recorded in a later judgment, the Supreme Court held that all amendments to the Ninth Schedule made before 24 April 1973 are valid and constitutional; the 1964 amendment falls before that date. [8]
Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964: further Ninth Schedule expansion
State governments across India had passed laws to acquire and redistribute land, but courts struck down several of them for violating the constitutional rights to equality and property. Parliament responded by passing the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, which shielded 44 such land reform laws from judicial challenge by placing them in the Ninth Schedule and broadened the definition of 'estate' in Article 31A. The Supreme Court initially upheld this amendment in 1965, but in 1967 the same Court ruled that fundamental rights could not be abridged by constitutional amendment, limiting the protection the Amendment had provided. The Amendment itself remains enacted as part of the Constitution.
A law or decision by the government
Property rights and land reform laws
1964
Mixed
Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964: further Ninth Schedule expansion
State governments across India had passed laws to acquire and redistribute land, but courts struck down several of them for violating the constitutional rights to equality and property. Parliament responded by passing the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, which shielded 44 such land reform laws from judicial challenge by placing them in the Ninth Schedule and broadened the definition of 'estate' in Article 31A. The Supreme Court initially upheld this amendment in 1965, but in 1967 the same Court ruled that fundamental rights could not be abridged by constitutional amendment, limiting the protection the Amendment had provided. The Amendment itself remains enacted as part of the Constitution.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
State governments across India had passed laws to acquire and redistribute land, but courts struck down several of them for violating the constitutional rights to equality and property. Parliament responded by passing the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, which shielded 44 such land reform laws from judicial challenge by placing them in the Ninth Schedule and broadened the definition of 'estate' in Article 31A. The Supreme Court initially upheld this amendment in 1965, but in 1967 the same Court ruled that fundamental rights could not be abridged by constitutional amendment, limiting the protection the Amendment had provided. The Amendment itself remains enacted as part of the Constitution.
Who did it
Property rights and land reform laws
The evidence
The Act is titled the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. [1]
The Statement of Objects and Reasons states that several State Acts relating to land reform had been struck down by courts as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31, and that the protection of Article 31A had been available only for tenures that were estates on 26 January 1950. [15]
The Amendment inserted a proviso into Article 31A stating that the State could not acquire land under personal cultivation within the ceiling limit, or any building or structure on it, unless the law provided compensation at a rate not less than market value. [15]
The Amendment substituted the definition of 'estate' in Article 31A clause (2)(a) to include any jagir, inam or muafi or similar grant (and any janmam right in Madras and Kerala), any land held under ryotwari settlement, and any land held or let for agriculture or ancillary purposes including waste land, forest land, pasture, and sites of buildings of cultivators, agricultural labourers and village artisans. [15]
The Act added 44 more Acts to the Ninth Schedule. [2]
Where it stands today
The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 stands enacted as part of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's validation of it in Sajjan Singh (1965) was overruled by the Golak Nath decision of 27 February 1967 on the question of amending fundamental rights. No further proceedings concerning the Amendment itself are recorded in the sources.
What was done
Parliament, in the Republic's fifteenth year, enacted the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. It widened the meaning of 'estate' in Article 31A to cover ryotwari settlements, jagirs, inams, muafis, janmam rights and other agricultural land, added a proviso requiring compensation at not less than market value for land under personal cultivation within the ceiling limit, and inserted 44 entries into the Ninth Schedule shielding state land reform enactments from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31. The Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) held the Amendment valid. The same Court in I.C. Golak Nath v.
What it meant for the country
The Seventeenth Amendment curtailed property rights by protecting 44 land reform laws from judicial challenge, but the Supreme Court later restored those rights when it ruled in Golak Nath (1967) that fundamental rights could not be amended.
Forty-four state land reform laws were placed beyond challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31, meaning individuals could not ask courts to test them for violating the rights to equality, freedom and property. [2][15]
Under the Amendment, compensation at not less than market value was required only for land held by a person under personal cultivation within the ceiling limit; other acquisitions were not subject to this requirement. [15]
Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (a law covered by the Amendment) shows lands held by tenants vesting in the State Government, with all rights, title and interest of owners ceasing absolutely. [10]
The Supreme Court in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (27 February 1967) held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, which curtailed the protection the Seventeenth Amendment had extended to land reform laws. [7][16]
Step by step
1964 Parliament enacted the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, amending Article 31A to broaden the definition of 'estate' and add a proviso requiring market-value compensation for personally cultivated land within ceiling limits, and adding 44 entries to the Ninth Schedule shielding state land reform laws from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31. Source 15 reproduces the Statement of Objects and Reasons and entries 21 to 39. [1][2][4][15]
1965 The Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan upheld the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, holding that Parliament intended solely to remove obstacles in fulfilling socio-economic policy and not to change Article 226. [12][16]
1967-02-27 The Supreme Court in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab considered the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 in three writ petitions. The petitions challenged whether Parliament could amend fundamental rights under Article 368. According to source 16, the decision in Sajjan Singh was overruled or reversed by Golak Nath, holding that fundamental rights could not be amended. [7][16]
In the early 1960s, the Government of India set up a committee to review corruption in public services and suggest legal changes. The committee, known as the Santhanam Committee, recommended changes including a new offence for public servants with assets they cannot explain. Parliament amended the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in 1964 to add that offence, and the government referred proposals on social and economic offences to the Law Commission. The 1964 changes were later consolidated into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is the current law.
A law or decision by the government
Corruption in public services
1964
Benefit to the nation
Santhanam Committee report, 1964
In the early 1960s, the Government of India set up a committee to review corruption in public services and suggest legal changes. The committee, known as the Santhanam Committee, recommended changes including a new offence for public servants with assets they cannot explain. Parliament amended the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in 1964 to add that offence, and the government referred proposals on social and economic offences to the Law Commission. The 1964 changes were later consolidated into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is the current law.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In the early 1960s, the Government of India set up a committee to review corruption in public services and suggest legal changes. The committee, known as the Santhanam Committee, recommended changes including a new offence for public servants with assets they cannot explain. Parliament amended the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in 1964 to add that offence, and the government referred proposals on social and economic offences to the Law Commission. The 1964 changes were later consolidated into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is the current law.
Who did it
Corruption in public services
The evidence
The Government of India appointed a committee in 1962 to review corruption and suggest changes in law. [2]
The committee was known as the Santhanam Committee; its recommendations led to the 1964 amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. [3][4][5]
The 1964 amendment added Section 5(1)(e) to the 1947 Act, making possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income an offence if the public servant cannot account for them. [3]
The government referred the Santhanam Committee's proposal on social and economic offences to the Law Commission, which produced its 29th report in 1966. [2]
The Santhanam Committee recommended conferring powers on departmental inquiry authorities to summon witnesses and compel production of documents; the Central Vigilance Commission also stressed this need. [7]
Where it stands today
The committee's work concluded with its report and the subsequent legislation. No proceedings are pending. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 remains in force.
What was done
The Government of India appointed the committee in 1962. Based on its recommendations, Parliament amended the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in 1964 to add Section 5(1)(e), making it an offence for a public servant to possess assets disproportionate to known sources of income and fail to account for them. The government also referred the committee's proposal on social and economic offences to the Law Commission, which reported in 1966.
What it meant for the country
The record shows the committee's work led to stronger anti-corruption law, including a new offence for unexplained assets and a Law Commission study of white-collar crime.
The 1964 amendment created a new offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for a public servant possessing assets disproportionate to known income and failing to account for them; this was later carried into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [3][5]
The Law Commission of India examined the Santhanam Committee's proposal on social and economic offences and submitted its 29th report in 1966, discussing white-collar crimes. [2]
Legislation was enacted to give departmental inquiry officers powers to summon witnesses and compel production of documents, as recommended by the Santhanam Committee and stressed by the Central Vigilance Commission. [7]
Step by step
1962 The Government of India appointed a committee to review the problem of corruption and make suggestions, including changes in law for speedy trial of bribery, corruption and criminal misconduct. [2]
1964 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was amended based on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee, adding Section 5(1)(e) on possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. [3][4][5]
1966 The Law Commission of India submitted its 29th report on the proposal to include certain social and economic offences in the Indian Penal Code, following the government's reference of the Santhanam Committee proposal. [2]
1988 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was enacted, consolidating and amending the law; its Statement of Objects and Reasons notes that the 1947 Act was amended in 1964 based on the Santhanam Committee recommendations. [1][5]
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967 Supreme Court judgment
India's Constitution gives Parliament a special power to amend any part of it, including the chapter on Fundamental Rights, which is Part III. In 1967, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held by six votes to five that Parliament could not amend or curtail those Fundamental Rights, treating a constitutional amendment as an ordinary law that must respect them. Parliament then passed the 24th Amendment in 1971, which expressly said Article 368 gives power to amend any provision of the Constitution and that Article 13 does not block such amendments. In 1973, in Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court upheld the 24th Amendment and set aside the Golaknath ruling: Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, but it cannot damage the basic structure of the Constitution. The 24th Amendment stands today and the basic structure limit applies.
A law or decision by the government
Constitutional amendment power
1967
Mixed
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967 Supreme Court judgment
India's Constitution gives Parliament a special power to amend any part of it, including the chapter on Fundamental Rights, which is Part III. In 1967, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held by six votes to five that Parliament could not amend or curtail those Fundamental Rights, treating a constitutional amendment as an ordinary law that must respect them. Parliament then passed the 24th Amendment in 1971, which expressly said Article 368 gives power to amend any provision of the Constitution and that Article 13 does not block such amendments. In 1973, in Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court upheld the 24th Amendment and set aside the Golaknath ruling: Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, but it cannot damage the basic structure of the Constitution. The 24th Amendment stands today and the basic structure limit applies.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
India's Constitution gives Parliament a special power to amend any part of it, including the chapter on Fundamental Rights, which is Part III. In 1967, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held by six votes to five that Parliament could not amend or curtail those Fundamental Rights, treating a constitutional amendment as an ordinary law that must respect them. Parliament then passed the 24th Amendment in 1971, which expressly said Article 368 gives power to amend any provision of the Constitution and that Article 13 does not block such amendments. In 1973, in Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court upheld the 24th Amendment and set aside the Golaknath ruling: Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, but it cannot damage the basic structure of the Constitution. The 24th Amendment stands today and the basic structure limit applies.
Who did it
Constitutional amendment power
The evidence
Golaknath v. State of Punjab was decided by an eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court by a 6:5 majority. [5][9]
The Court held that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 is an ordinary 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) and therefore cannot take away or abridge Fundamental Rights in Part III. [4][5][6]
The 24th Amendment Act, 1971 inserted clause (4) in Article 13 and amended Article 368 to expressly give Parliament power to amend any provision of the Constitution. [1][3][4]
Kesavananda Bharati upheld the 24th Amendment as valid, overruled Golaknath by 7:6, and held that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be abrogated by amendment. [4][8][9]
The Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976 added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368, purporting to bar judicial review of amendments and to remove any limitation on Parliament's constituent power. [2]
Where it stands today
The Golaknath judgment was overruled by Kesavananda Bharati in 1973 and no longer sets the law. The 24th Amendment of 1971 stands, subject to the basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati. No challenge to the 24th Amendment is shown in the sources as pending.
What was done
The Supreme Court in Golaknath v. State of Punjab ruled by a 6:5 majority that Parliament could not amend or curtail the Fundamental Rights in Part III, holding that a constitutional amendment was an ordinary 'law' under Article 13(2). Parliament responded by enacting the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, which amended Article 13 by inserting clause (4) and amended Article 368 to state that Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court upheld the 24th Amendment and overruled Golaknath, while holding that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be abrogated by amendment.
What it meant for the country
The record shows both a temporary freeze on Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights after Golaknath and its restoration by the 24th Amendment in 1971, followed by the lasting basic structure limit imposed by Kesavananda Bharati.
The Golaknath judgment created what one source calls 'a significant constitutional impasse, effectively freezing Parliament's ability to amend Fundamental Rights' until Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment in 1971. [9]
The 24th Amendment restored Parliament's power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, which the Statement of Objects and Reasons said was necessary to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy and the objectives in the Preamble. [1][8]
Kesavananda Bharati, while overruling Golaknath and upholding the 24th Amendment, introduced the basic structure doctrine, which still limits Parliament's amending power and prevents the basic structure from being abrogated. [8][9]
The 1976 Forty-second Amendment added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368 to bar any court from questioning any amendment and to declare no limitation whatever on Parliament's constituent power, though the constitutional text in the source shows these clauses now stand alongside the basic structure limit settled in 1973. [2]
Step by step
1967 The Supreme Court decided Golaknath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762). An eleven-judge bench, by a 6:5 majority, held that Parliament could not curtail any Fundamental Right in Part III; a constitutional amendment under Article 368 was an ordinary 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2), so an amendment that takes away or abridges a Fundamental Right is void. The Court also held that Article 368 only lays down the procedure for amendment, not the power itself, and that Fundamental Rights were beyond the amending process. [4][5][6][9]
1971 Parliament enacted the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. It inserted Article 13(4), saying nothing in Article 13 applies to any amendment made under Article 368, and amended Article 368 to state: 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.' It also made it obligatory for the President to give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill. The Statement of Objects and Reasons says this was in response to Golaknath, which was found to leave Parliament with no power to take away or curtail Fundamental Rights even if needed to give effect to Directive Principles. [1][3][4]
1973 The Supreme Court decided Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. It upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment and overruled Golaknath by a 7:6 margin, holding that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, is beyond Parliament's amending power, the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment. [4][8][9]
1976 The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 inserted clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368: no amendment (including Part III) made before or after section 55 of that Act shall be called in question in any court on any ground, and there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend any provision. [2]
Supreme Court upholds Election Commission recognition of Congress (R)
After the Indian National Congress split in 1969, two rival groups each claimed to be the real party: one led by Jagjivan Ram and backed by Indira Gandhi (called Congress (J) or Congress (R)), and another led by S. Nijalingappa (called Congress (O)). The Election Commission of India, the constitutional body that oversees elections, decided by an order of 11 January 1971 that the group backed by Indira Gandhi was the Indian National Congress and was entitled to its reserved election symbol of two bullocks with yoke on. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in the Sadiq Ali case, dismissing appeals by the rival group. The recognition stands, and the matter concluded with no further proceedings.
Closed without a verdict
Indian National Congress split and election symbol
1969
Supreme Court upholds Election Commission recognition of Congress (R)
After the Indian National Congress split in 1969, two rival groups each claimed to be the real party: one led by Jagjivan Ram and backed by Indira Gandhi (called Congress (J) or Congress (R)), and another led by S. Nijalingappa (called Congress (O)). The Election Commission of India, the constitutional body that oversees elections, decided by an order of 11 January 1971 that the group backed by Indira Gandhi was the Indian National Congress and was entitled to its reserved election symbol of two bullocks with yoke on. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in the Sadiq Ali case, dismissing appeals by the rival group. The recognition stands, and the matter concluded with no further proceedings.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
After the Indian National Congress split in 1969, two rival groups each claimed to be the real party: one led by Jagjivan Ram and backed by Indira Gandhi (called Congress (J) or Congress (R)), and another led by S. Nijalingappa (called Congress (O)). The Election Commission of India, the constitutional body that oversees elections, decided by an order of 11 January 1971 that the group backed by Indira Gandhi was the Indian National Congress and was entitled to its reserved election symbol of two bullocks with yoke on. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in the Sadiq Ali case, dismissing appeals by the rival group. The recognition stands, and the matter concluded with no further proceedings.
Who did it
Indian National Congress split and election symbol
The evidence
In 1969 the Indian National Congress split into the Congress (J) group led by Jagjivan Ram and backed by Indira Gandhi, and the Congress (O) group led by Nijalingappa; each claimed to be the real Indian National Congress. [2][15][16]
The Election Commission of India applied the test of majority at the organisational level and in the legislative wings, and by its order dated 11 January 1971 held that Congress (J) was the Indian National Congress. [2][15][16]
The Supreme Court in Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India dismissed the appeals and upheld the Election Commission's order recognising the Jagjivan Ram-led group as the Indian National Congress entitled to the reserved symbol. [2][7][15]
The Election Commission recognised the Indira Gandhi group as the real Congress with the right to call itself the Indian National Congress without the suffix (R), and restored the frozen Congress symbol of two bullocks to it; the group's supporters preferred the calf and cow symbol. [3]
The Election Commission allotted the 'Calf and Cow' symbol to Congress (R) and the 'Charkha being Plied by Woman' symbol to Congress (O) on 25 January 1971. [6]
Where it stands today
The Sadiq Ali appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1972, concluding the proceedings. The Election Commission's recognition of the Indira Gandhi-led Congress group as the Indian National Congress stands and was subsequently relied upon in later judgments, including Janatha Dal Party v. The Indian National Congress (2014). No appeal is pending.
What was done
The Election Commission of India, applying a majority test at the organisational level and in the legislative wings, recognised the Indira Gandhi-backed Congress group (then called Congress (J)) as the Indian National Congress for all purposes, by order dated 11 January 1971. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against that order in Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, upholding the recognition.
What it meant for the country
The documents establish that the Election Commission and the Supreme Court definitively resolved which faction inherited the Indian National Congress name and reserved symbol after the 1969 split, but the wider national consequences are not documented in the sources.
The Indira Gandhi-backed group secured the legal right to call itself the Indian National Congress and to use its reserved election symbol, while the rival Congress (O) group lost that identity, as held by the Election Commission and affirmed by the Supreme Court. [2][15]
The Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeals in Sadiq Ali affirmed the Election Commission's authority to decide which rival faction of a political party should be recognised, establishing a precedent for resolving intra-party splits in electoral matters. [7]
The properties and funds of the Indian National Congress before the 1969 split were held by the trial court, as recorded in the Janatha Dal Party judgment, to belong to the Congress (J) group led by Jagjivan Ram and Indira Gandhi, not to Congress (O). [2][15]
Step by step
1969 The Indian National Congress split into two groups: one led by Jagjivan Ram and backed by Indira Gandhi, called the Indian National Congress (J), and another led by Nijalingappa, called the Indian National Congress (O). Each group claimed to be the real Indian National Congress. [2][15][16]
1969-11-12 According to Wikipedia, the Indian National Congress (Requisitionists), or INC(R), was founded on 12 November 1969 as the Indira Gandhi-led faction formed after her expulsion in 1969. [3]
1971-01-11 The Election Commission of India, by order dated 11 January 1971, held that the Congress (J) group, applying the test of majority at the organisational level and in the legislative wings, was the Indian National Congress. [2][15][16]
1971-01-25 The Election Commission allotted the symbol 'Calf and Cow' to Congress (R) and 'Charkha being Plied by Woman' to Congress (O), according to the Unacademy account. The Commission is also recorded in the Sadiq Ali appeal as having held that the party presided over by Jagjivan Ram was entitled to the reserved symbol 'Two Bullocks with Yoke on'. [6][7]
1972 In Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Election Commission's order recognising the Jagjivan Ram-led Congress group as the Indian National Congress entitled to the reserved symbol. One source records the judgment date as 11 November 1971 in Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1971. [2][7][15][16]
1978-02-02 After a further split in the Congress, the Election Commission recognised Indira Gandhi's faction as the Indian National Congress (I) and allotted it the 'Hand' symbol. [6]
1979 The Election Commission froze the 'Calf and Cow' symbol and recognised the Devraj Urs faction as Indian National Congress (U), allotting it the 'Charkha' symbol. [6]
Indian National Congress split and election symbol
1969
Mixed
The government took over India's biggest private banks, 1969
In July 1969 Indira Gandhi's government took over the country's largest private banks, so that they became government-owned. The bank owners went to the Supreme Court. In February 1970 the court said the law used for the takeover was not valid. Within days the government brought the takeover back with a new law, dated back to July 1969, so the banks stayed with the government. They are still government banks today.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Indira Gandhi government
1969
Mixed
The government took over India's biggest private banks, 1969
In July 1969 Indira Gandhi's government took over the country's largest private banks, so that they became government-owned. The bank owners went to the Supreme Court. In February 1970 the court said the law used for the takeover was not valid. Within days the government brought the takeover back with a new law, dated back to July 1969, so the banks stayed with the government. They are still government banks today.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
In July 1969 Indira Gandhi's government took over the country's largest private banks, so that they became government-owned. The bank owners went to the Supreme Court. In February 1970 the court said the law used for the takeover was not valid. Within days the government brought the takeover back with a new law, dated back to July 1969, so the banks stayed with the government. They are still government banks today.
Who did it
Indira Gandhi government
The evidence
The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 states that the undertakings of the banks were acquired with effect from 19 July 1969. [1]
The 1970 Act defines the appointed day as 14 February 1970, the day the Ordinance was promulgated. [1]
The Act records that the Supreme Court by a majority judgment delivered on 10 February 1970 declared the 1969 Act void. [1]
The President promulgated the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance on 14 February 1970, and the Act came on the statute book on 31 March 1970. [1]
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper filed writ petitions under Article 32 challenging the 1969 Ordinance; he was a shareholder and director of Central Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Union Bank of India and Bank of India and held current and fixed-deposit accounts. [2]
Where it stands today
The 1969 Act was declared void by the Supreme Court. The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 replaced it and is the statute in force, as amended.
What was done
The Indira Gandhi government acquired the undertakings of certain banking companies with effect from 19 July 1969. After the Supreme Court declared the 1969 Act void, the President promulgated an Ordinance on 14 February 1970 and Parliament enacted the 1970 Act, which received assent on 31 March 1970.
What it meant for the country
The Supreme Court struck down the 1969 nationalisation Act, but the government re-enacted the acquisition with effect from 19 July 1969, so the record shows both a judicial reversal and a legislative reassertion.
The Supreme Court declared the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969 void by majority judgment on 10 February 1970. [1]
The 1970 Act gave the acquisition effect from 19 July 1969, the date the undertakings were initially acquired. [1]
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper, a shareholder and director of Central Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Union Bank of India and Bank of India, challenged the 1969 Ordinance under Article 32. [2]
Step by step
1969-07-19 The undertakings of the banks were initially acquired with effect from 19 July 1969, as recorded in the 1970 Act. [1]
1970-02-10 The Supreme Court by a majority judgment delivered on 10 February 1970 declared the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969 void. [1]
1970-02-14 The President promulgated the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1970. [1]
1970-03-31 The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 received assent and came on the statute book. [1]
The yearly payments to India's former kings were stopped, 1970–71
When the princely states joined India, their rulers were promised a yearly payment from the government, called a privy purse. Indira Gandhi's government tried to end these payments. Its first attempt failed in Parliament by a narrow margin, so it used a presidential order instead. The Supreme Court cancelled that order in December 1970. In 1971 Parliament changed the Constitution itself, and the payments and royal privileges ended for good.
A law or decision by the government
Indira Gandhi government
1970
Mixed
The yearly payments to India's former kings were stopped, 1970–71
When the princely states joined India, their rulers were promised a yearly payment from the government, called a privy purse. Indira Gandhi's government tried to end these payments. Its first attempt failed in Parliament by a narrow margin, so it used a presidential order instead. The Supreme Court cancelled that order in December 1970. In 1971 Parliament changed the Constitution itself, and the payments and royal privileges ended for good.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
When the princely states joined India, their rulers were promised a yearly payment from the government, called a privy purse. Indira Gandhi's government tried to end these payments. Its first attempt failed in Parliament by a narrow margin, so it used a presidential order instead. The Supreme Court cancelled that order in December 1970. In 1971 Parliament changed the Constitution itself, and the payments and royal privileges ended for good.
Who did it
Indira Gandhi government
The evidence
Article 291 of the Constitution guaranteed that privy purses would be paid from the Consolidated Fund of India, and Article 362 protected the privileges and rights of rulers. [3]
The first attempt in 1970 was a bill that passed the Lok Sabha but failed in the Rajya Sabha by one vote, with 149 voting for and 75 against. [5]
The President issued the derecognition order on 6 September 1970 under Article 366(22). [1][3][4]
On 15 December 1970 an eleven-judge Supreme Court bench struck down the presidential order in Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India. [1][4]
The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 came into force on 28 December 1971, repealing Articles 291 and 362, amending Article 366(22) and inserting Article 363A. [2][7][9]
Where it stands today
The matter concluded with the enactment of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, which stands in force; the Supreme Court's ruling of 15 December 1970 was followed by that amendment. No pending proceedings are recorded in the cited sources.
What was done
The Indira Gandhi government first sought abolition through the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1970, which passed the Lok Sabha but was rejected in the Rajya Sabha. The Union Cabinet then advised the President, who on 6 September 1970 derecognised all former rulers under Article 366(22), stopping their privy purses and privileges. The Supreme Court on 15 December 1970 quashed that executive order and restored the purses and privileges, holding them constitutional rights.
What it meant for the country
The record shows the Supreme Court first restored the rulers' privy purses and privileges as constitutionally guaranteed rights, and Parliament then overrode that ruling by constitutional amendment, repealing Articles 291 and 362 and ending the Consolidated Fund charge, though the cited sources
The eleven-judge Supreme Court judgment quashed the executive orders and reinstated the privy purses and privileges, ruling that the privy purse was a constitutional right payable free of income tax and an obligation of the Union charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. [1]
The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 then repealed Article 291 and Article 362, removing the guarantee of privy purses from the Consolidated Fund and the protection of rulers' privileges that the Court had restored. [3][7]
The Government's stated object was to terminate the privy purses and privileges because the concept of rulership with special privileges was incompatible with an egalitarian social order; the insertion of Article 363A achieved that termination. [7][8]
The sequence established, as recorded, that executive power cannot override constitutional guarantees, and the abolition was achieved only through the constitutional-amendment route after the Supreme Court struck down the executive order. [4]
Step by step
1970 The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1970, which sought to abolish the privy purses and privileges of the former rulers, passed the Lok Sabha but failed in the Rajya Sabha, one vote short of the required two-thirds majority, with 149 voting for and 75 against. [5]
1970-09-06 Following the rejection of the bill, the Union Cabinet advised the President, who ordered under Article 366(22) that all rulers ceased to be recognised as rulers from that date; the order stopped the privy purses and discontinued their privileges. [1][3][4]
1970-12-15 An eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India declared the presidential orders of 6 September 1970 illegal and inoperative, issued writs quashing them, and restored the privy purses and privileges; it held that the privy purse was a constitutional right payable free of income tax and an obligation of the Union charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. [1][3][5]
1971 Parliament passed the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, repealing Article 291 and Article 362, amending Article 366(22) and inserting Article 363A to abolish recognition of rulers and extinguish the privy purses and privileges. [2][3][5][7]
1971-12-28 The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 came into force on 28 December 1971; Article 363A provided that recognition granted to Rulers of Indian States shall cease and privy purses be abolished, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution. [7][9]
The Indian Constitution sets out how it can be changed, and in 1967 the Supreme Court had ruled that Parliament could not use those changes to take away Fundamental Rights. In 1971 Parliament passed the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, which said Parliament could change any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and that the President must sign a duly passed amendment bill. The Supreme Court reviewed this in Kesavananda Bharati and, on 24 April 1973, upheld the amendment but ruled that Parliament cannot change the Constitution's basic structure. The amendment stands today with that basic-structure limit.
A law or decision by the government
Parliament's power to amend Constitution
1971
Mixed
24th Amendment, 1971
The Indian Constitution sets out how it can be changed, and in 1967 the Supreme Court had ruled that Parliament could not use those changes to take away Fundamental Rights. In 1971 Parliament passed the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, which said Parliament could change any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and that the President must sign a duly passed amendment bill. The Supreme Court reviewed this in Kesavananda Bharati and, on 24 April 1973, upheld the amendment but ruled that Parliament cannot change the Constitution's basic structure. The amendment stands today with that basic-structure limit.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Indian Constitution sets out how it can be changed, and in 1967 the Supreme Court had ruled that Parliament could not use those changes to take away Fundamental Rights. In 1971 Parliament passed the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, which said Parliament could change any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and that the President must sign a duly passed amendment bill. The Supreme Court reviewed this in Kesavananda Bharati and, on 24 April 1973, upheld the amendment but ruled that Parliament cannot change the Constitution's basic structure. The amendment stands today with that basic-structure limit.
Who did it
Parliament's power to amend Constitution
The evidence
The Act is titled the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. [1]
Section 3 inserted into Article 368 the words: 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.' [3]
Section 3 also changed the President's role so that a passed amendment bill 'shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon' the Constitution stands amended. [3]
Section 3 inserted clause (3) in Article 368: 'Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article.' [3]
The Bill stated it sought to amend article 13 to make it inapplicable to any amendment of the Constitution under article 368. [2]
Where it stands today
The challenge to the 24th Amendment concluded in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), where the Supreme Court upheld it subject to the basic structure doctrine. The basic structure limit was reaffirmed in Minerva Mills (1980). No pending proceedings on the 24th Amendment are indicated in the sources.
What was done
Parliament passed the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. It changed Article 368 to state that Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution, made the President's approval of a passed amendment bill obligatory, and said Article 13 would not apply to amendments made under Article 368.
What it meant for the country
The amendment gave Parliament express power to change Fundamental Rights, but the Supreme Court's basic structure doctrine limited that power, so the record shows both expanded legislative authority and a judicial check on it.
The 24th Amendment enabled Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments, as stated in the commentary on Section 3 of the Act. [3]
The Supreme Court held that certain fundamental features — democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law — cannot be amended by Parliament, and that judicial review is part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away. [10]
After Kesavananda, Parliament may amend Fundamental Rights only as long as the amendment aligns with the basic structure doctrine. [7]
In Minerva Mills, the Supreme Court said there could be no doubt about the existence of limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. [8]
Step by step
1967 The Supreme Court in Golaknath v State of Punjab held that the word 'law' in Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments, so an amendment infringing Fundamental Rights would be void. [7]
1971 Parliament passed the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. It inserted clause (1) in Article 368 giving Parliament power to amend any provision of the Constitution, made the President's approval obligatory, and inserted clause (3) that Article 13 does not apply to amendments under Article 368. [1][2][3]
1973-04-24 The Supreme Court delivered Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala. A 13-judge bench by a 7:6 majority held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure; the 24th Amendment was held valid. [10][3][7]
1980-07-31 The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India said that after Kesavananda there could be no doubt about the existence of limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. [8]
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was a law that allowed the central and state governments to detain people without trial if the government was satisfied they might act against defence, security, public order, or essential supplies and services. The Act replaced an earlier 1971 ordinance and gave District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates, and Police Commissioners in some cities the same power. It stands as enacted in the sources, with no repeal documented.
A law or decision by the government
Preventive detention law
1971
Harm to the nation
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was a law that allowed the central and state governments to detain people without trial if the government was satisfied they might act against defence, security, public order, or essential supplies and services. The Act replaced an earlier 1971 ordinance and gave District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates, and Police Commissioners in some cities the same power. It stands as enacted in the sources, with no repeal documented.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was a law that allowed the central and state governments to detain people without trial if the government was satisfied they might act against defence, security, public order, or essential supplies and services. The Act replaced an earlier 1971 ordinance and gave District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates, and Police Commissioners in some cities the same power. It stands as enacted in the sources, with no repeal documented.
Who did it
Preventive detention law
The evidence
Section 3 allowed the Central Government or a State Government to make an order directing that a person be detained if satisfied it was necessary to prevent acts prejudicial to defence, foreign relations, security of India, security of the State, maintenance of public order, or maintenance of essential supplies and services. [2]
District Magistrates, specially empowered Additional District Magistrates, and Commissioners of Police for Bombay, Calcutta, Madras or Hyderabad could also exercise the power to order detention. [2]
A detention order made by an officer had to be reported to the State Government with grounds and particulars, and could not remain in force for more than twenty days unless approved by the State Government. [2]
When a person was detained, the authority making the order had to communicate the grounds ordinarily within five days, or in exceptional circumstances within fifteen days, and had to give the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order. [1]
The authority was not required to disclose facts which it considered against the public interest to disclose. [1]
Where it stands today
No pending proceedings are documented in the sources. The Act is recorded as enacted, and no repeal or pending constitutional challenge is shown.
What was done
The Indian Parliament enacted the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, repealing the Maintenance of Internal Security Ordinance, 1971. Under the Act, central and state governments, and specified officers, could order detention without trial. A 1975 High Court judgment recorded that during the Emergency some detention orders were revoked and fresh orders passed with corrected declarations.
What it meant for the country
The Act allowed detention without trial and permitted authorities to withhold grounds and detain people for up to two years without an Advisory Board opinion during the 1971 Emergency, curtailing personal liberty.
The Act empowered the Central Government or a State Government to order detention of any person, including a foreigner, without trial on grounds of defence, security, public order, or maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. [2]
The authority making a detention order could refuse to disclose facts which it considered against the public interest, limiting the detainee's right to know the grounds of detention. [1]
During the Emergency proclaimed on 3 December 1971, a person detained on certain grounds could be kept in detention for up to two years without obtaining the Advisory Board's opinion for a period longer than three months. [1]
Step by step
1971-05-07 The Maintenance of Internal Security Ordinance, 1971 was in operation; actions taken under it were later deemed to have been taken under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act as if the Act had come into force on this date. [1]
1971-12-03 The Proclamation of Emergency was issued; special provisions of the Act allowed detention without obtaining the Advisory Board's opinion for a period longer than three months, up to two years, during this Emergency. [1]
1975-10-31 The High Court in Satya Sharma vs Union of India held that an order of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution if it was not passed under the Act, and that judicial review was available where the order or declaration was shown not to be under the Act. [8]
Maruti Limited was a company set up to make cars and other vehicles. A creditor asked the Delhi High Court to wind it up because it could not pay its debts; the court appointed a provisional liquidator and then ordered the company wound up. A 1980 law took over the company's undertakings and the government put them into Maruti Udyog Ltd, a government company, without the liabilities.
A law or decision by the government
Sanjay Gandhi; Indira Gandhi government
1971
Harm to the nation
Maruti Limited and the Gupta Commission, 1971–79
Maruti Limited was a company set up to make cars and other vehicles. A creditor asked the Delhi High Court to wind it up because it could not pay its debts; the court appointed a provisional liquidator and then ordered the company wound up. A 1980 law took over the company's undertakings and the government put them into Maruti Udyog Ltd, a government company, without the liabilities.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Maruti Limited was a company set up to make cars and other vehicles. A creditor asked the Delhi High Court to wind it up because it could not pay its debts; the court appointed a provisional liquidator and then ordered the company wound up. A 1980 law took over the company's undertakings and the government put them into Maruti Udyog Ltd, a government company, without the liabilities.
Who did it
Sanjay Gandhi; Indira Gandhi government
The evidence
Maruti Limited was incorporated to carry on business as manufacturers, dealers, hirers, etc., of automobiles, motor cars, lorries, vans, motor-cycles, etc. [10]
Sanjay Gandhi was a director and managing director of Maruti Limited. [2][4]
Company Petition No. 126 of 1977 was filed on 16 May 1977 by a creditor for winding up on the ground that the company was unable to pay its debts and meet its current liabilities. [4][10]
The official liquidator was appointed provisional liquidator on 22 July 1977, and the company was ordered to be wound up on 6 March 1978. [4][10]
The Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 acquired the undertakings, including right, title and interest excepting liabilities, and the Central Government directed vesting of the undertakings in Maruti Udyog Ltd, a government company. [4][10]
Where it stands today
The winding-up petition (Company Petition No. 126 of 1977) concluded with the Delhi High Court's winding-up order of 6 March 1978. The company's undertakings were later acquired under the Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 and vested in Maruti Udyog Ltd.
What was done
A creditor petitioned to wind up Maruti Limited on the ground that it could not pay its debts. The Delhi High Court appointed the official liquidator as provisional liquidator on 22 July 1977 and ordered the company wound up on 6 March 1978. The Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 was then enacted, and the Central Government vested the company's undertakings in Maruti Udyog Ltd, a government company, excluding the liabilities.
What it meant for the country
The record shows Maruti Limited could not pay its debts and was wound up, leaving a creditor owed Rs 3.79 lakh, and payments made on verbal instructions were not recovered.
A creditor, Laxmi Steel Traders, was owed Rs 3,79,712.48 by Maruti Limited in June 1977 and filed the petition that led to the winding-up order. [10]
The Delhi High Court held that payments for leave encashment and supervision charges made to employees on verbal instructions of Sanjay Gandhi just before the winding-up order could not be recovered by the company. [4]
The Central Government acquired the undertakings of Maruti Limited under the 1980 Act and vested them in Maruti Udyog Ltd, a government company, excluding the liabilities. [4][10]
Step by step
1977-05-07 A board meeting of Maruti Limited reviewed the company's financial problems; the minutes could not be recorded. [10]
1977-05-16 Company Petition No. 126 of 1977 was filed by a creditor for the winding up of Maruti Limited on the ground that it was unable to pay its debts and meet its current liabilities. [4][10]
1977-07-22 The Delhi High Court appointed the official liquidator as provisional liquidator of Maruti Limited. [4][10]
1978-03-06 The Delhi High Court ordered Maruti Limited to be wound up. [4][10]
1980 The Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 (Act 64 of 1980) was enacted, acquiring the undertakings of the company, including right, title and interest excepting liabilities. [4]
In May 1971, the head cashier of a State Bank of India branch in New Delhi received a telephone call from someone claiming to be the Prime Minister's principal secretary, who said the Prime Minister urgently needed ₹60 lakh (6,000,000 rupees) for Bangladesh. A court record dated 24 November 1971, bearing the name R.S. Nagarwala, contains this account. No further official finding is stated in the available record.
Being investigated, nothing proven
Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala and the State Bank of India
1971
Nagarwala case, 1971
In May 1971, the head cashier of a State Bank of India branch in New Delhi received a telephone call from someone claiming to be the Prime Minister's principal secretary, who said the Prime Minister urgently needed ₹60 lakh (6,000,000 rupees) for Bangladesh. A court record dated 24 November 1971, bearing the name R.S. Nagarwala, contains this account. No further official finding is stated in the available record.
Being investigated, nothing proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators or a court are still looking into this. Nothing has been proved.
What happened
In May 1971, the head cashier of a State Bank of India branch in New Delhi received a telephone call from someone claiming to be the Prime Minister's principal secretary, who said the Prime Minister urgently needed ₹60 lakh (6,000,000 rupees) for Bangladesh. A court record dated 24 November 1971, bearing the name R.S. Nagarwala, contains this account. No further official finding is stated in the available record.
Who did it
Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala and the State Bank of India
The evidence
On 24 May 1971 at about 12 noon, Ved Prakash Malhotra, Chief Cashier of the State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi, received a telephone call. [11]
The caller purported to be Shri Haksar, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. [11]
The caller said the Prime Minister needed Rs 60 lakh for Bangladesh and that arrangements should be made. [11]
As reported by Wikipedia, the case is said to involve Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala allegedly imitating Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and convincing Ved Prakash Malhotra to withdraw ₹60 lakh from the State Bank of India branch where he was head cashier. [12]
Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires a magistrate's inquiry into the cause of death where a person dies in police or other authorised custody. [13]
Where it stands today
The available extract ends before the court's order, so it cannot be said whether the matter concluded or where any appeal or custody inquiry stood. The complete trial record and custodial-death inquiry are set out in missing documents.
What was done
The available court record establishes only that a telephone call was received by the State Bank of India's chief cashier asking him to arrange ₹60 lakh for Bangladesh. It does not state what the cashier did with the request or what the court decided about Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala.
Step by step
1971-05-24 At about 12 noon, Ved Prakash Malhotra, Chief Cashier of the State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi, received a telephone call purporting to be from Shri Haksar, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, saying that the Prime Minister needed Rs 60 lakh for Bangladesh and that arrangements should be made. [11]
1971-11-24 A court record titled R.S. Nagarwala vs State is dated 24 November 1971. The available extract contains the telephone account but does not state the court's final order. [11]
Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala and the State Bank of India
1971
Harm to the nation
The Nagarwala case: ₹60 lakh from SBI, 1971
On 24 May 1971, a chief cashier at the State Bank of India's Parliament Street branch handed over ₹60 lakh in cash after a telephone call supposedly from the Prime Minister's office. The recipient, Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala, was arrested and a trial court convicted him, but an appellate court cancelled the conviction and sent the case back for a fresh trial. The government later set up a one-man commission of inquiry headed by Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy, which submitted its report on 23 October 1978.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Indira Gandhi's office; State Bank of India
1971
Harm to the nation
The Nagarwala case: ₹60 lakh from SBI, 1971
On 24 May 1971, a chief cashier at the State Bank of India's Parliament Street branch handed over ₹60 lakh in cash after a telephone call supposedly from the Prime Minister's office. The recipient, Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala, was arrested and a trial court convicted him, but an appellate court cancelled the conviction and sent the case back for a fresh trial. The government later set up a one-man commission of inquiry headed by Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy, which submitted its report on 23 October 1978.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators have filed charges in court. The trial is not over, so nobody has been found guilty.
What happened
On 24 May 1971, a chief cashier at the State Bank of India's Parliament Street branch handed over ₹60 lakh in cash after a telephone call supposedly from the Prime Minister's office. The recipient, Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala, was arrested and a trial court convicted him, but an appellate court cancelled the conviction and sent the case back for a fresh trial. The government later set up a one-man commission of inquiry headed by Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy, which submitted its report on 23 October 1978.
Who did it
Indira Gandhi's office; State Bank of India
The evidence
₹60 lakh was withdrawn from the State Bank of India's Parliament Street branch on 24 May 1971 on a telephone call. [13]
Nagarwala was arrested and charged under IPC sections 419/420. [13]
A trial court convicted Nagarwala, but an appellate court set aside the conviction and remanded the case. [13]
Delhi High Court on 24 November 1971 found no prima facie case against chief cashier Malhotra. [13]
Where it stands today
The criminal case against Nagarwala was remanded for fresh trial and, as of the Delhi High Court order dated 24 November 1971, it was pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The commission of inquiry concluded with the submission of its report on 23 October 1978.
What was done
The police arrested Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala on 24 May 1971 and filed a charge sheet within three days; a trial court convicted him, but an appellate court cancelled the conviction and sent the case back for a fresh trial. The Delhi High Court on 24 November 1971 held that the chief cashier, Ved Prakash Malhotra, had no prima facie case of criminal misappropriation against him and refused a joint trial. The Union government set up a commission of inquiry under Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy on 9 June 1977, and it submitted its report on 23 October 1978.
What it meant for the country
The documented record shows the State Bank of India parted with ₹60 lakh in cash on 24 May 1971, and the sources do not record recovery of that amount.
The State Bank of India's Parliament Street branch handed over ₹60 lakh in cash on 24 May 1971; the sources do not state that the money was recovered. [13]
Step by step
1971-05-24 Chief cashier Ved Prakash Malhotra of State Bank of India's Parliament Street branch received a telephone call purporting to be from the Prime Minister's principal secretary, then a female voice purporting to be the Prime Minister, and handed over ₹60 lakh in cash to R.S. Nagarwala near Bible House on Parliament Street. [13]
1971-05-24 Nagarwala was arrested under sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code. [13]
1971-05-27 Nagarwala made a confessional statement before Shri G. ... (name incomplete in source). [13]
1971-08-09 Fresh charges under sections 419/420 IPC were framed against Nagarwala after the appellate court set aside his conviction and remanded the case to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate N. Kakkar. [13]
1971-10-05 Nagarwala moved an application seeking to make chief cashier Malhotra an accused; the trial court found no prima facie case against Malhotra. [13]
1971-11-24 Delhi High Court ruled that there was no prima facie case of criminal misappropriation against Malhotra and that a joint trial was not required. [13]
1977-06-09 The Jaganmohan Reddy Commission of Enquiry into the Nagarwala case was set up by notification no. 389(E). [6]
1978-07-19 Shri Padam Rosha tendered evidence before the commission as CW 108. [6]
1978-10-23 Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy submitted the commission's report. [6]
2008-12-16 Central Information Commission ordered Ministry of Home Affairs to provide information about the commission's records under RTI Act 2005, because the information was more than twenty years old. [6]
In the early 1970s the Government of India controlled the import, sale and use of newsprint — the paper newspapers are printed on — through the Newsprint Control Order of 1962 and the Import Control Order of 1955. For 1972–73 the government announced a policy that limited how many pages a newspaper could print, how widely it could circulate and whether it could start new editions. Bennett Coleman & Co., publisher of the Times of India and other papers, challenged the policy in the Supreme Court. The Court, by majority, held that the policy was really a newspaper control order disguised as an import policy, and cancelled it as violating the freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the press, under Article 19(1)(a). The ruling stands as a key protection of press freedom.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Press freedom and government regulation of newsprint
1972
Benefit to the nation
Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, 1972
In the early 1970s the Government of India controlled the import, sale and use of newsprint — the paper newspapers are printed on — through the Newsprint Control Order of 1962 and the Import Control Order of 1955. For 1972–73 the government announced a policy that limited how many pages a newspaper could print, how widely it could circulate and whether it could start new editions. Bennett Coleman & Co., publisher of the Times of India and other papers, challenged the policy in the Supreme Court. The Court, by majority, held that the policy was really a newspaper control order disguised as an import policy, and cancelled it as violating the freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the press, under Article 19(1)(a). The ruling stands as a key protection of press freedom.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
In the early 1970s the Government of India controlled the import, sale and use of newsprint — the paper newspapers are printed on — through the Newsprint Control Order of 1962 and the Import Control Order of 1955. For 1972–73 the government announced a policy that limited how many pages a newspaper could print, how widely it could circulate and whether it could start new editions. Bennett Coleman & Co., publisher of the Times of India and other papers, challenged the policy in the Supreme Court. The Court, by majority, held that the policy was really a newspaper control order disguised as an import policy, and cancelled it as violating the freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the press, under Article 19(1)(a). The ruling stands as a key protection of press freedom.
Who did it
Press freedom and government regulation of newsprint
The evidence
The Newsprint Control Order, 1962 came into force on January 17, 1962 and restricted the acquisition, sale and consumption of newsprint, requiring authorisation from the Controller. [6]
The Newsprint Policy of 1972–73 restricted newsprint allocation, newspaper circulation and the starting of new editions. [1][2][3][5]
The Supreme Court, by majority, struck down the impugned clauses of the Newsprint Control Order and import policy as unconstitutional, holding that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of the press and circulation. [1][3][5]
The Court rejected the government's argument that the policy was economic regulation, holding that even a facially economic measure must be judged by its direct and inevitable effect on the fundamental right. [3]
The Court described the Newsprint Control Policy as a newspaper control order in the guise of framing an Import Control Policy for newsprint. [5]
Where it stands today
Concluded. The Supreme Court struck down the impugned clauses of the newsprint policy in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106. The Newsprint Control Order 1962 itself remained on the statute book but its restrictive Clause 3 and Schedule II were omitted in 1996 by the Newsprint Control (Amendment) Order, 1996. No appeal is recorded.
What was done
The Government of India, through the Central Government, framed the Newsprint Policy for 1972–73 under the Newsprint Control Order 1962 and the Import Control Order 1955, setting page limits, circulation restrictions and barring new editions. The Supreme Court, by majority, held the challenged clauses of the Newsprint Control Order and import policy unconstitutional and struck them down, ruling that the government cannot control how much newspapers print or how widely they circulate even in the name of managing a scarce resource.
What it meant for the country
The Supreme Court cancelled a government policy that restricted how many pages newspapers could print and how widely they could circulate, securing press freedom under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court struck down the newsprint policy, holding that the government cannot control how much newspapers print or how widely they circulate even under the guise of managing a scarce resource like newsprint. [3]
The ruling reinforced the constitutional safeguard of press freedom under Articles 19 and 14 and set a precedent that a facially economic regulation must be tested by its direct and inevitable effect on fundamental rights. [1][3]
Step by step
1962-01-17 The Newsprint Control Order, 1962 came into force under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, restricting the acquisition, sale and consumption of newsprint and requiring an authorisation from the Controller. [6]
1972 The Central Government announced the Newsprint Policy for 1972–73, restricting newsprint allocation, newspaper circulation and the starting of new editions. [1][2][3][5]
1972-10-31 The Supreme Court, by majority, struck down the impugned clauses of the Newsprint Control Order and the newsprint import policy as unconstitutional, holding they violated the freedom of speech and expression including freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a). Reported as AIR 1973 SC 106; (1972) 2 SCC 788. [1][3][5]
1996 Clause 3 and Schedule II of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962 were omitted by the Newsprint Control (Amendment) Order, 1996, removing the restriction on acquisition, sale and consumption of newsprint. [7]
Press freedom and government regulation of newsprint
1972
General Insurance Nationalisation, 1972
General insurance means fire, marine and miscellaneous insurance business. In 1972, the Government of India passed a law taking over all Indian general insurance companies and merging them into four subsidiaries under a new General Insurance Corporation of India. The law gave these state-owned entities the sole right to carry on general insurance in India. In 2002, an amendment changed the Corporation's role to reinsurance and transferred its shares in the four companies to the central government. The 1972 Act and the 2002 amendment remain in force.
A law or decision by the government
Nationalisation of general insurance business
1972
General Insurance Nationalisation, 1972
General insurance means fire, marine and miscellaneous insurance business. In 1972, the Government of India passed a law taking over all Indian general insurance companies and merging them into four subsidiaries under a new General Insurance Corporation of India. The law gave these state-owned entities the sole right to carry on general insurance in India. In 2002, an amendment changed the Corporation's role to reinsurance and transferred its shares in the four companies to the central government. The 1972 Act and the 2002 amendment remain in force.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
General insurance means fire, marine and miscellaneous insurance business. In 1972, the Government of India passed a law taking over all Indian general insurance companies and merging them into four subsidiaries under a new General Insurance Corporation of India. The law gave these state-owned entities the sole right to carry on general insurance in India. In 2002, an amendment changed the Corporation's role to reinsurance and transferred its shares in the four companies to the central government. The 1972 Act and the 2002 amendment remain in force.
Who did it
Nationalisation of general insurance business
The evidence
Section 4(1) of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972: on the appointed day all the shares in the capital of every Indian insurance company stand transferred to and vested in the Central Government free of all trusts, liabilities and encumbrances affecting them. [9]
Section 9 of the Act provides for the Central Government to form a Government company known as the General Insurance Corporation of India for superintending, controlling and carrying on the business of general insurance; the 2002 amendment changed this purpose to carrying on reinsurance business. [1]
Section 16(2) of the Act says that in framing schemes, the object of the Central Government shall be to ensure that ultimately there are only four companies, excluding the Corporation, in existence. [5][8]
Section 24 of the Act provides that, except to the extent expressly provided, on and from the appointed day the Corporation and the acquiring companies shall have the exclusive privilege of carrying on general insurance business in India. [2]
The appointed day under the Act could be no later than 2 January 1973, as notified by the Central Government. [1][6]
Where it stands today
No pending or concluded court proceeding is documented. Source 11 is a snippet from a case title mentioning a challenge to the enactment, but it provides no date, court name or outcome.
What was done
The Central Government enacted the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. Under it, shares of every Indian insurance company vested in the Central Government, a General Insurance Corporation of India was formed, and schemes merged existing companies into four acquiring companies. In 2002, the Central Government amended the Act to make the Corporation a reinsurer and transferred its shares in the four companies to itself.
What it meant for the country
The sources establish a state monopoly over general insurance and its later modification, but give no figures on money, employment, rights or other consequences, so the overall effect is unclear.
Private insurers were excluded: on and from the appointed day, certificates of registration under the Insurance Act granted to any insurer other than the Corporation and the acquiring companies ceased to have effect. [2]
From 2002, the General Insurance Corporation of India ceased to carry on general insurance business, and its functions under section 18 were to be performed by the Central Government; shares in the four acquiring companies stood transferred to the Central Government. [4][1]
Step by step
1972 The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 was enacted. It transferred all shares in every Indian insurance company to the Central Government free of trusts, liabilities and encumbrances, and provided for formation of the General Insurance Corporation of India. [1][7][9]
1972 The Act gave the Corporation and the four acquiring companies the exclusive privilege of carrying on general insurance business in India from the appointed day. Certificates of registration of other insurers under the Insurance Act ceased to have effect. [2][7]
1972 The Act required schemes of merger to ensure that ultimately only four companies, excluding the Corporation, remained in existence. [5][8]
2002 The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 2002 changed the Corporation's purpose to carrying on reinsurance business, transferred its shares in National Insurance Company Limited, New India Assurance Company Limited, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and United India Insurance Company Limited to the Central Government, and provided that the Corporation ceases to carry on general insurance business. [4]
The Nizam of Hyderabad had made rules, called the Mulki rules, which gave people of the Telangana region preference for government jobs. The Supreme Court upheld those rules in 1972. Parliament then changed the Constitution and the President issued a 1974 order that replaced the Mulki rules with local-area reservations for jobs and education.
A law or decision by the government
Telangana Mulki rules and regional employment discrimination
1972
Mixed
Supreme Court on Mulki Rules, 1972
The Nizam of Hyderabad had made rules, called the Mulki rules, which gave people of the Telangana region preference for government jobs. The Supreme Court upheld those rules in 1972. Parliament then changed the Constitution and the President issued a 1974 order that replaced the Mulki rules with local-area reservations for jobs and education.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Nizam of Hyderabad had made rules, called the Mulki rules, which gave people of the Telangana region preference for government jobs. The Supreme Court upheld those rules in 1972. Parliament then changed the Constitution and the President issued a 1974 order that replaced the Mulki rules with local-area reservations for jobs and education.
Who did it
Telangana Mulki rules and regional employment discrimination
The evidence
The Mulki Rules were promulgated by the Nizam of Hyderabad before the merger of that State with India, and laid down residence qualifications for appointment to state services. [4]
The Mulki rules defined a Mulki as a person who was, among other things, a subject of Hyderabad State by birth, or entitled by residence, or whose father had completed 15 years of government service at the time of the person's birth, or who was the wife of a Mulki. [4]
After the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Telangana area of Hyderabad State and the State of Andhra were combined to form the State of Andhra Pradesh, and the Mulki rules continued to apply to Telangana. [4][5]
An Andhra Pradesh High Court Full Bench on 9 December 1970 held by majority that the Mulki rules were not valid and operative after the formation of Andhra Pradesh. [4]
In 1972, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Mulki rules, validating the legal right of Telangana residents to preferential employment in their region. [11][12]
Where it stands today
The Supreme Court proceedings concluded in 1972. No pending appeal or proceeding is shown in the sources. The Mulki rules stand replaced by Article 371-D and the 1974 Presidential Order.
What was done
The Nizam's government issued the Mulki rules giving Telangana residents preference in state employment. The Supreme Court upheld the rules in 1972. Parliament then inserted Article 371-D and the President issued the 1974 Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, replacing the Mulki rules with a local-area framework.
What it meant for the country
The record shows a Supreme Court ruling that protected Telangana residents' employment preference was overturned by Parliament within a year, and the change was followed by protests from both Andhra and Telangana sides.
The Supreme Court's ruling split state employees: Andhra-area employees demanded scrapping the rules and Telangana-area employees demanded keeping them, as the Andhra Pradesh High Court noted in March 1973. [6]
The Jai Andhra movement formed in 1972 in support of a separate Andhra state, after the courts had upheld the Mulki rules. [12]
Parliament overturned the Supreme Court judgment within a year, so the legal protection of Telangana residents' employment rights was nullified. [11]
The Mulki rules were replaced by Article 371-D and the 1974 Presidential Order, which changed reservation in public employment and education to a local-area basis under the six-point formula. [7]
Step by step
1956-11-01 The State of Andhra Pradesh was formed with Telangana included. The Mulki rules, made earlier by the Nizam of Hyderabad, continued to apply to the Telangana area. [4][5]
1959-03-21 The Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 came into force. Its Section 2 repealed residence requirements for public employment, while Section 3 allowed the central government to make rules for the Telangana area. [5]
1969 There was an agitation in the Telangana area for constituting that area into a separate State. [7]
1970-12-09 An Andhra Pradesh High Court Full Bench held by majority that the Mulki rules were not valid and operative after the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. [4]
1972 The Jai Andhra movement arose in 1972, supporting the creation of a separate Andhra state after the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court had upheld the Mulki rules. [12]
1972-02-18 The Andhra Pradesh High Court passed the judgment under appeal in Writ Appeal No. 633 of 1970, arising out of a High Court order of 9 July 1969 in Writ Petition No. 1761 of 1969. [4]
1972-10-03 The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in The Director of Industries & Commerce v. V. Venkata Reddy, a Mulki rules case. According to Telangana Library, in 1972 the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Telangana and upheld the Mulki rules, validating the legal right of Telangana's residents to preferential employment in their region. [4][11]
1973 Within a year of the 1972 Supreme Court ruling, Parliament overturned that judgment. [11]
1973-03-19 The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded that in the wake of the Supreme Court's Mulki Rules judgment, Andhra-area employees demanded that the rules be scrapped, while Telangana-area employees demanded that the rules be kept. [6]
1974 The President issued the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974, replacing the Mulki rules with a local-area framework. Article 371-D empowered the President to make such an order for equitable opportunities in public employment and education for people from different parts of Andhra Pradesh. [7]
Telangana Mulki rules and regional employment discrimination
1973
Mixed
Coal Mines Nationalisation, 1973
In the early 1970s India moved coal mines from private owners to government ownership. Parliament first took over management of coal mines in January 1973 and then passed the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, which transferred ownership of scheduled coal mines to the Central Government and placed management with government companies or custodians. The law remains in force, with later amendments in 1976, 1978 and 1986, and the Supreme Court has upheld the 1986 amendment.
A law or decision by the government
Nationalisation of coal mines
1973
Mixed
Coal Mines Nationalisation, 1973
In the early 1970s India moved coal mines from private owners to government ownership. Parliament first took over management of coal mines in January 1973 and then passed the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, which transferred ownership of scheduled coal mines to the Central Government and placed management with government companies or custodians. The law remains in force, with later amendments in 1976, 1978 and 1986, and the Supreme Court has upheld the 1986 amendment.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In the early 1970s India moved coal mines from private owners to government ownership. Parliament first took over management of coal mines in January 1973 and then passed the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, which transferred ownership of scheduled coal mines to the Central Government and placed management with government companies or custodians. The law remains in force, with later amendments in 1976, 1978 and 1986, and the Supreme Court has upheld the 1986 amendment.
Who did it
Nationalisation of coal mines
The evidence
The Act is titled the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; its remaining provisions were deemed to have come into force on 1 May 1973. [1]
The Act's stated purpose was to acquire and transfer owners' rights in scheduled coal mines so that ownership and control of coal resources vested in the State and were distributed to subserve the common good. [6]
Section 3 transferred the right, title and interest of owners in scheduled coal mines to the Central Government free from all incumbrances. [3]
Section 11 placed general superintendence, direction, control and management of a coal mine in a government company specified by the Central Government or in a custodian appointed by it. [4]
Section 4 made the Central Government the lessee of the state government for mining leases, with renewal rights. [8]
Where it stands today
No pending proceedings are identified in the sources. The Supreme Court upheld Section 19 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986, which validated payments and accounts; the 2014 Supreme Court decision noted the Act's continuing public-sector reservation.
What was done
Parliament passed the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, which transferred the right, title and interest of owners in scheduled coal mines to the Central Government free from all incumbrances, and placed management with government companies or custodians. Before that, the Central Government took over management of coal mines under an ordinance of 30 January 1973, replaced by the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973.
What it meant for the country
The nationalisation brought coal mines under state ownership and reserved coal mining for the public sector, but the official record also notes unauthorised mining and thefts of coal after nationalisation.
Ownership of scheduled coal mines passed to the Central Government free from all incumbrances. [3]
Coal mining was reserved for the public sector, with exceptions only for iron and steel companies and isolated small pockets. [11]
After nationalisation, unauthorised mining of coal was carried on recklessly and thefts of coal from adjacent nationalised mines were reported. [6]
In one affected mine, 600 workers who had been re-employed were given work in other government-controlled mines after the mine was declared closed on 16 May 1973. [9]
214 coking coal mines in the Bengal-Bihar region had been brought under government control. [2]
Step by step
1973-01-30 The Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1973 came into force, and the management of coal mines was taken over by the Central Government pending nationalisation. [2][10]
1973-03-31 Parliament passed the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 to replace the ordinance. [2]
1973-05-01 The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was deemed to have come into force, except sections 30 and 31 which came into force at once. [1][10]
1973-05-30 The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was enacted by Parliament to acquire and transfer owners' rights in scheduled coal mines. [6]
1976-04-29 The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 commenced, prohibiting private parties from carrying on coal mining or leasing coal for mining. [6]
1978 The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1978 clarified that certain pre-nationalisation amounts were not included in current assets vesting in government, and specified interest on claimed amounts. [6]
1986-12-23 The Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 came into force, amending the 1972 and 1973 nationalisation Acts and validating payments and accounts. [10]
2014-08-25 The Supreme Court noted that under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, coal mining is exclusively reserved for the public sector, except for iron and steel companies and isolated small pockets. [11]
In India, Parliament can change the Constitution through a special amending power, and the question in this matter was whether that power had any limit. Kesavananda Bharati, head of a Kerala religious mutt with large landholdings, challenged Kerala land reform laws and three constitutional amendments (the 24th, 25th and 29th) passed while his petition was pending. On 24 April 1973, a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled by 7–6 that Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution but cannot damage or destroy its basic structure. The Court upheld the 24th Amendment and the 29th Amendment (which had placed Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, a list shielded from challenge on fundamental rights grounds), and struck down part of the 25th Amendment: the concluding clause of Article 31C that had barred courts from examining Parliament's declaration about a law's policy.
A law or decision by the government
Constitutional amendments and basic structure doctrine
1973
Benefit to the nation
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973
In India, Parliament can change the Constitution through a special amending power, and the question in this matter was whether that power had any limit. Kesavananda Bharati, head of a Kerala religious mutt with large landholdings, challenged Kerala land reform laws and three constitutional amendments (the 24th, 25th and 29th) passed while his petition was pending. On 24 April 1973, a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled by 7–6 that Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution but cannot damage or destroy its basic structure. The Court upheld the 24th Amendment and the 29th Amendment (which had placed Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, a list shielded from challenge on fundamental rights grounds), and struck down part of the 25th Amendment: the concluding clause of Article 31C that had barred courts from examining Parliament's declaration about a law's policy.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In India, Parliament can change the Constitution through a special amending power, and the question in this matter was whether that power had any limit. Kesavananda Bharati, head of a Kerala religious mutt with large landholdings, challenged Kerala land reform laws and three constitutional amendments (the 24th, 25th and 29th) passed while his petition was pending. On 24 April 1973, a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled by 7–6 that Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution but cannot damage or destroy its basic structure. The Court upheld the 24th Amendment and the 29th Amendment (which had placed Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, a list shielded from challenge on fundamental rights grounds), and struck down part of the 25th Amendment: the concluding clause of Article 31C that had barred courts from examining Parliament's declaration about a law's policy.
Who did it
Constitutional amendments and basic structure doctrine
The evidence
The case was filed as Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970 by Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others against the State of Kerala and another. [1]
The Supreme Court delivered the judgment on 24 April 1973. [1][2][3]
Seven of the thirteen judges formed the majority in the judgment. [3]
The majority held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. [2][3]
The Court upheld the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 and the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972, and struck down the last clause of Article 31C introduced by the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, which gave conclusiveness to Parliament's declaration about the policy of a law. [3][8][9]
Where it stands today
The Kesavananda Bharati proceedings concluded with the judgment of 24 April 1973. The basic structure doctrine was applied in later Supreme Court decisions including Waman Rao v. Union of India (judgment of 9 May 1980) and Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India (pronounced 31 July 1980, as recorded in Waman Rao). The sources record no pending proceedings.
What was done
The Supreme Court's 13-judge bench decided on 24 April 1973, by 7–6, that Parliament cannot use its amending power under Article 368 to damage or destroy the Constitution's basic structure. It upheld the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 and the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972, which had placed Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, and struck down the concluding part of Article 31C introduced by the 25th Amendment, which had made Parliament's declaration about a law's policy conclusive and immune from court review.
What it meant for the country
The documents record that the ruling secured a lasting limit on Parliament's amending power and preserved judicial review and free and fair elections as basic features: the Court later used the doctrine to strike down Article 329A(4) and clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 — although the
The doctrine gave courts the power to strike down constitutional amendments that damage core features: the Supreme Court later held Article 329A(4) (special election provisions for the Prime Minister and Speaker) beyond Parliament's amending power because it struck at free and fair elections, and in Minerva Mills held clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 unconstitutional for destroying judicial review and a limited amending power. [3]
Since 24 April 1973, any law added to the Ninth Schedule by a constitutional amendment is open to challenge in court for damaging the basic structure, though laws added before that date are not, as held by the Supreme Court in Waman Rao. [2]
Kesavananda Bharati's own property was not protected: the Court upheld the Kerala land reform amendments, so his property claim did not succeed, as reported by The Legal Quorum. [9]
Step by step
1970 Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970 was filed by His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others against the State of Kerala and another, challenging provisions of the Kerala land reform laws. [1]
1971-12 Parliament passed the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, which affirmed that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, as reported by The Legal Quorum. [8]
1972 The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972 was enacted. It added the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Kerala Act 35 of 1969) and the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 25 of 1971) to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. [6][7]
1973-04-24 The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala on a 13-judge bench. The majority (seven of thirteen judges) held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to damage or destroy its basic structure. The Court upheld the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act and the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, and struck down the last clause of Article 31C introduced by the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, which had given conclusiveness to Parliament's declaration about the policy of a law. [1][2][3][8][9]
1980-05-09 In Waman Rao v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that constitutional amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 by which Acts and Regulations were added to the Ninth Schedule are open to challenge on the ground that they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution or its basic structure; amendments adding laws to the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 are not open to such challenge. [2]
1980-07-31 As recorded in Waman Rao, the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India held clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 to be unconstitutional on the ground that they destroyed basic features of the Constitution such as judicial review and a limited amending power. [3]
Constitutional amendments and basic structure doctrine
1973
Benefit to the nation
Supreme Court on MISA in Sambhu Nath Sarkar, 1973
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA) allowed the government to detain people without trial to protect internal security. During the 1971 Emergency, Section 17A allowed detention beyond three months without the opinion of an Advisory Board for up to two years. Sambhu Nath Sarkar, a West Bengal government employee detained under the Act, challenged this. On 19 April 1973, the Supreme Court held Section 17A unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution. The case ended with that provision struck down.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Validity of MISA provisions
1973
Benefit to the nation
Supreme Court on MISA in Sambhu Nath Sarkar, 1973
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA) allowed the government to detain people without trial to protect internal security. During the 1971 Emergency, Section 17A allowed detention beyond three months without the opinion of an Advisory Board for up to two years. Sambhu Nath Sarkar, a West Bengal government employee detained under the Act, challenged this. On 19 April 1973, the Supreme Court held Section 17A unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution. The case ended with that provision struck down.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA) allowed the government to detain people without trial to protect internal security. During the 1971 Emergency, Section 17A allowed detention beyond three months without the opinion of an Advisory Board for up to two years. Sambhu Nath Sarkar, a West Bengal government employee detained under the Act, challenged this. On 19 April 1973, the Supreme Court held Section 17A unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution. The case ended with that provision struck down.
Who did it
Validity of MISA provisions
The evidence
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was passed on 2 July 1971. [20]
Section 3 of MISA allowed the Central Government or a State Government to order detention to prevent acts prejudicial to the defence of India, security of the State, public order, or supplies and services essential to the community. [1]
Section 17A of MISA allowed detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board for longer than three months, but not exceeding two years, during the Proclamation of Emergency issued on 3 December 1971. [14][15]
Sambhu Nath Sarkar was detained under Section 3(1) of MISA; on 15 April 1972 the State Government confirmed his detention and directed it to continue for three years. [20]
On 19 April 1973, the Supreme Court decided Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal. As reported by a secondary source, it declared Section 17A of MISA unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 22. [20][21]
Where it stands today
The Supreme Court proceedings in Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal concluded on 19 April 1973 with Section 17A of MISA held unconstitutional. No appeal or pending proceeding is recorded in the sources.
What was done
Parliament passed MISA on 2 July 1971. Section 17A allowed detention without an Advisory Board's opinion for up to two years during the 1971 Emergency. The Supreme Court, in Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, held Section 17A unconstitutional.
What it meant for the country
The ruling was beneficial: it removed a provision allowing detention beyond three months without an Advisory Board's opinion, and at least one detained person was released as a result.
Section 17A could no longer be used to detain a person for longer than three months without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board. [20][21]
At least one MISA detenu, Baidya Nath Mandi, was released on 25 April 1973 after the State of West Bengal acted on the Sarkar decision. [13]
When West Bengal issued a fresh detention order against Baidya Nath Mandi on the same grounds, the Supreme Court cancelled it and directed that he be set at liberty on 7 September 1973. [13]
Step by step
1971-07-02 Parliament passed the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. [20]
1971-12-03 The Proclamation of Emergency referred to in Section 17A was issued. [14]
1972-04-15 The State Government confirmed Sambhu Nath Sarkar's detention under MISA and directed that it continue for three years from the date of detention. [20]
1973-04-19 The Supreme Court decided Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal. As reported by a secondary source, it declared Section 17A of MISA unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 22. [20][21]
1973-04-25 After the Sarkar decision, the State of West Bengal directed the release of Baidya Nath Mandi, a MISA detenu, and he was released. [13]
1973-09-07 The Supreme Court quashed (cancelled) a fresh detention order against Baidya Nath Mandi made on the same grounds and directed that he be set at liberty. [13]
Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) amendment, 1975
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 allowed the government to detain people without trial. In 1975, during the Emergency, the government amended it to remove the requirement of telling detainees the grounds for their detention and to try to stop courts from reviewing detention orders. The amendment was made by presidential ordinance on 30 June 1975 and a second ordinance on 15 July 1975, and later replaced by an Act of Parliament.
A law or decision by the government
Preventive detention during Emergency
1975
Harm to the nation
Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) amendment, 1975
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 allowed the government to detain people without trial. In 1975, during the Emergency, the government amended it to remove the requirement of telling detainees the grounds for their detention and to try to stop courts from reviewing detention orders. The amendment was made by presidential ordinance on 30 June 1975 and a second ordinance on 15 July 1975, and later replaced by an Act of Parliament.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 allowed the government to detain people without trial. In 1975, during the Emergency, the government amended it to remove the requirement of telling detainees the grounds for their detention and to try to stop courts from reviewing detention orders. The amendment was made by presidential ordinance on 30 June 1975 and a second ordinance on 15 July 1975, and later replaced by an Act of Parliament.
Who did it
Preventive detention during Emergency
The evidence
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 originally required that grounds of detention be disclosed to the person detained (Section 8). [4]
The President proclaimed an Emergency on 25 June 1975 under Article 352(1) of the Constitution. [8]
On 27 June 1975, the President issued an order under Article 359(1) suspending the right to move court for MISA detentions. [6]
On 30 June 1975, the President promulgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975. [7]
On 15 July 1975, the President promulgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1975. [7]
Where it stands today
The amendment was enacted by the President and Parliament in 1975 and was in force during the Emergency. The High Court judgments cited were delivered in 1975.
What was done
The President promulgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance on 30 June 1975 and the Maintenance of Internal Security (Second Amendment) Ordinance on 15 July 1975. Parliament later passed the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Act, 1975 (39 of 1975). The amendment removed the requirement to record or communicate grounds of detention and added Section 16A(9), which the government argued barred judicial review of detention orders.
What it meant for the country
The 1975 MISA amendment and related orders allowed detention without grounds and suspended the right to move court, as recorded in High Court judgments.
The Presidential Order of 27 June 1975 suspended the right of a person detained under MISA to move any court for enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. [6]
Detainees were held without being served grounds of detention; in Bharti Nayyar, the detenu was arrested on 24 July 1975 and no grounds were served because of the declaration under Section 16A(3). [8]
The Bombay High Court noted that by the amendment to MISA it was no longer necessary to record or communicate grounds of detention to the detenu. [6]
The government argued that no detention under MISA could be judicially reviewed, though the Delhi High Court held that the scope of Section 16A(9) had to be examined in each case. [2]
Step by step
1971 The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 came into force. Section 8 required that grounds of detention be disclosed to the person detained. [4]
1975 Parliament passed the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Act, 1975 (39 of 1975), replacing the ordinance. Section 4 of MISA was substituted by this Act. [1][2][8]
1975 The 39th Constitutional Amendment placed MISA in the Ninth Schedule, which the government argued barred all challenges to detentions. [6]
1975-06-25 The President proclaimed an Emergency under Article 352(1) of the Constitution. [8]
1975-06-27 The President issued an order under Article 359(1) suspending the right of a person detained under MISA to move any court for enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22. [6]
1975-06-30 The President promulgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, the first amendment ordinance. It provided that during its operation MISA would have effect subject to the amendments specified, and required review of detentions made on or after 25 June 1975. [7]
1975-07-15 The President promulgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, further amending MISA, including Section 16-A. [7]
1975-08-22 The Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered judgment in P. Venkateseshamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, considering the validity of the 1975 MISA amendment ordinances. [7]
1975-09-15 The Delhi High Court delivered judgment in Bharti Nayyar v. Union of India. The detenu was arrested on 24 July 1975 and no grounds of detention were served because of the declaration under Section 16A(3). [8]
1975-10-09 The Bombay High Court delivered judgment in Krishna Madhaorao Ghatate v. Union of India, noting that by the amendment to MISA it was no longer necessary to record or communicate grounds of detention. [6]
1975-10-31 The Delhi High Court delivered judgment in Satya Sharma v. Union of India, holding that Section 16A(9), added by Ordinance XVI of 1975, did not by itself make all detention orders non-reviewable; its scope had to be examined case by case. [2]
The Emergency, 1975–77: rights suspended, more than 1 lakh people jailed without trial
In June 1975 a High Court cancelled Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election. Thirteen days later the President declared an Emergency, which gives the central government extra powers and lets it suspend citizens' rights. For 21 months opposition leaders were jailed without trial, newspapers needed approval before printing, and people could not go to court against their arrest. A commission of inquiry under a former Chief Justice of India later found the Emergency was not justified.
An official inquiry found fault
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi; President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed
1975
Harm to the nation
The Emergency, 1975–77: rights suspended, more than 1 lakh people jailed without trial
In June 1975 a High Court cancelled Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election. Thirteen days later the President declared an Emergency, which gives the central government extra powers and lets it suspend citizens' rights. For 21 months opposition leaders were jailed without trial, newspapers needed approval before printing, and people could not go to court against their arrest. A commission of inquiry under a former Chief Justice of India later found the Emergency was not justified.
An official inquiry found fault
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A government auditor or an inquiry commission examined this and reported what went wrong. This is a report, not a court verdict.
What happened
In June 1975 a High Court cancelled Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election. Thirteen days later the President declared an Emergency, which gives the central government extra powers and lets it suspend citizens' rights. For 21 months opposition leaders were jailed without trial, newspapers needed approval before printing, and people could not go to court against their arrest. A commission of inquiry under a former Chief Justice of India later found the Emergency was not justified.
Who did it
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (Congress) took the decision. President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed signed the proclamation on 25 June 1975.
The evidence
The Supreme Court's order of 24 June 1975 records that the Allahabad High Court had set aside Indira Gandhi's 1971 election. The Supreme Court let her stay Prime Minister for the time being, but she could not vote in Parliament as an MP. [2]
The Government of India's factsheet on the Emergency says the proclamation was issued on 25 June 1975 citing “internal disturbance”, that all newspapers were put under pre-censorship from 26 June, and that three changes to the Constitution (the 38th, 39th and 42nd Amendments) stopped courts from questioning the Emergency and cut the powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts. [1]
The Supreme Court's judgment of 28 April 1976 (ADM Jabalpur) held, by four judges to one, that a person held during the Emergency could not ask a court to check whether the arrest was lawful. Justice H.R. Khanna disagreed. [3]
The Shah Commission of Inquiry, headed by former Chief Justice J.C. Shah, gave three reports in 1978. As reported, it concluded that the country faced no economic crisis or breakdown of law and order that called for an Emergency, and that the Cabinet had not functioned normally when the decision was made. [6][8]
The Shah Commission recorded that 1,10,806 people were detained: 34,988 under MISA and the rest under the Defence of India Rules (as set out by the Supreme Court Observer). [7]
The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 replaced “internal disturbance” with “armed rebellion”, required the Cabinet's decision in writing before an Emergency, and said the right to life and liberty can never be suspended. [4]
Where it stands today
The Emergency ended on 21 March 1977. In 1978 Parliament changed the Constitution so that an Emergency can be declared only for war, outside attack or armed rebellion, only on the Cabinet's written decision, and never suspending the right to life. In 2017 the Supreme Court overruled its own ADM Jabalpur judgment. We found no record of any court convicting anyone for the decision to impose the Emergency. In July 2024 the Government of India declared 25 June “Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas”; as reported by Deccan Herald, the Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge to that.
What was done
The government declared an Emergency citing “internal disturbance”, suspended the right to go to court for basic rights, and jailed people under MISA, a law that allowed jailing a person without trial. It censored newspapers, changed the Constitution to limit the courts, and ran a sterilisation drive (an operation after which a person cannot have children). Elections were held in March 1977, Congress lost, and the Emergency was lifted on 21 March 1977.
What it meant for the country
A commission of inquiry found the Emergency was not justified, and official records show mass detention without trial, press censorship and deaths linked to the sterilisation drive.
1,10,806 people were detained without trial, 34,988 of them under MISA, according to the Shah Commission. [7][1]
Sterilisations rose from 26.42 lakh in 1975–76 to 81.32 lakh in 1976–77. The Shah Commission recorded 1,774 deaths linked to the operations and 548 complaints that unmarried people had been sterilised, as stated in the Government of India factsheet. [1]
25,962 government and public-sector employees were forcibly retired, as stated in the Government of India factsheet. [1]
The 42nd Amendment extended the term of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies from five years to six and cut the powers of the higher courts, as stated in the Government of India factsheet. [1]
Step by step
1975-06-12 The Allahabad High Court rules that Indira Gandhi misused government machinery in her 1971 election campaign, and bars her from elected office for six years. [1]
1975-06-24 The Supreme Court lets her remain Prime Minister while her appeal is heard, but she cannot vote in Parliament. [2]
1975-06-25 The President signs the Emergency proclamation. Opposition leaders, activists and journalists are arrested. [1][8]
1975-06-26 All newspapers are put under censorship. The next day the right to go to court for basic rights is suspended. [1]
1975-11-07 The Supreme Court strikes down the part of the 39th Amendment that tried to put the Prime Minister's election beyond the reach of the courts. [5]
1976-04-19 As reported by The Week and ThePrint, police fire on people protesting against house demolitions at Turkman Gate, Delhi. Police acknowledged six deaths. [9][10]
1976-04-28 The Supreme Court rules in ADM Jabalpur that detained persons cannot approach the courts during the Emergency. [3]
1977-03-21 After Lok Sabha elections on 16–20 March, the Emergency is lifted. The Janata Party forms the government. [1]
1978 The Shah Commission gives its three reports. Parliament passes the 44th Amendment to make a repeat harder. [6][4]
2017-08-24 A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the Puttaswamy case, overrules the ADM Jabalpur judgment. [11]
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi; President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed
1976
Mixed
The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976
In 1976, during the Emergency, Parliament passed a set of changes to India's Constitution. Two of those changes are at issue here. One, section 4, said that any law meant to carry out the Directive Principles of State Policy could not be struck down for violating the rights to equality and freedom. The other, section 55, said no constitutional amendment could be questioned in any court, and removed all limits on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. In the Minerva Mills case, decided on 9 May 1980, the Supreme Court struck down both changes. The Court held they damaged the basic structure of the Constitution: the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles, and the limited nature of Parliament's amending power, are essential features that cannot be destroyed. Sections 4 and 55 are therefore of no legal effect.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Constitution of India; fundamental rights and judicial review
1976
Mixed
The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976
In 1976, during the Emergency, Parliament passed a set of changes to India's Constitution. Two of those changes are at issue here. One, section 4, said that any law meant to carry out the Directive Principles of State Policy could not be struck down for violating the rights to equality and freedom. The other, section 55, said no constitutional amendment could be questioned in any court, and removed all limits on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. In the Minerva Mills case, decided on 9 May 1980, the Supreme Court struck down both changes. The Court held they damaged the basic structure of the Constitution: the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles, and the limited nature of Parliament's amending power, are essential features that cannot be destroyed. Sections 4 and 55 are therefore of no legal effect.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
In 1976, during the Emergency, Parliament passed a set of changes to India's Constitution. Two of those changes are at issue here. One, section 4, said that any law meant to carry out the Directive Principles of State Policy could not be struck down for violating the rights to equality and freedom. The other, section 55, said no constitutional amendment could be questioned in any court, and removed all limits on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. In the Minerva Mills case, decided on 9 May 1980, the Supreme Court struck down both changes. The Court held they damaged the basic structure of the Constitution: the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles, and the limited nature of Parliament's amending power, are essential features that cannot be destroyed. Sections 4 and 55 are therefore of no legal effect.
Who did it
Constitution of India; fundamental rights and judicial review
The evidence
Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment amended Article 31C by substituting the words 'all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV' for 'the principles specified in Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Article 39'. [2]
Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment inserted sub-sections (4) and (5) in Article 368. Clause (4) said no amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground. Clause (5) removed all limitations on the amending power. [2]
The Supreme Court held sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment void and beyond the amending power of Parliament because they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution and destroy its basic structure. [1][2]
The Court held that the harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. [1]
The Court held that a limited amending power is one of the basic features of the Indian Constitution, and the limitations on that power cannot be destroyed. [1][2]
Where it stands today
The challenge to sections 4 and 55 concluded in the Supreme Court's Minerva Mills judgment of 9 May 1980, which struck them down as void. No appeal is recorded in the sources. The sources do not cover the other provisions of the 42nd Amendment, such as the Preamble changes or the extension of legislative terms.
What was done
Parliament enacted the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Section 4 made all Directive Principles override the rights to equality (Article 14) and freedom (Article 19). Section 55 barred courts from questioning any constitutional amendment and removed all limits on Parliament's amending power. The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills struck down both sections as beyond Parliament's amending power.
What it meant for the country
The 42nd Amendment curtailed fundamental rights and judicial review, but the Supreme Court struck down the offending sections, holding that the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure.
The Supreme Court held that if courts were deprived of the power to review constitutional amendments, fundamental rights would become 'a mere adornment' because 'rights without remedies are as writ in water'. [1]
The Court held that the harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution, and struck down the provision that made fundamental rights subservient to directive principles. [1][2]
The Court held that a limited amending power is one of the basic features of the Constitution, so Parliament could not, by exercising a limited power, convert it into an unlimited one. [1][2]
The Court said Article 31C as amended had removed two sides of the 'golden triangle' of Articles 14, 19 and 21, which assure the people liberty and equality and preserve the dignity of the individual. [1]
Step by step
1977-01-03 Section 4 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 came into force, amending Article 31C to protect any law giving effect to any Directive Principle from challenge under Articles 14 and 19. Section 55 also came into force, inserting sub-sections (4) and (5) in Article 368: clause (4) said no amendment shall be called in question in any court on any ground; clause (5) removed all limitations on the amending power. [2]
1980-05-09 The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. v Union of India held that section 4 of the 42nd Amendment is beyond the amending power of Parliament and void, since it damages the basic structure by totally excluding challenge to any law on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away rights under Articles 14 or 19. The Court also held section 55 void, since it removed all limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and conferred power to damage or destroy its basic structure. [2]
1980-07-31 In a separate opinion in Minerva Mills, Kailasam J agreed that sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment are void and beyond the amending power of Parliament. The opinion stated that if courts are totally deprived of the power to review amendments, fundamental rights will become 'a mere adornment' because 'rights without remedies are as writ in water', and that Article 31C as amended removed two sides of the 'golden triangle' of Articles 14, 19 and 21. [1]
Constitution of India; fundamental rights and judicial review
1976
The Kuo Oil deal, 1976
Indian Oil Corporation, the state-owned oil company, floated a tender in 1980 to buy 500,000 tonnes of high speed diesel. A private group complained, relying on a parliamentary committee report and newspaper articles, that the contract was given to Kuo Oil of Hong Kong at US $355 per tonne when another offer was US $350, and that a minister had overruled officers and bypassed the Empowered Committee. The magistrate found no case to answer, and the Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge on 18 April 1983, holding the lower court lacked jurisdiction and there was no case for interference.
Closed without a verdict
Indira Gandhi government; Indian Oil Corporation
1976
The Kuo Oil deal, 1976
Indian Oil Corporation, the state-owned oil company, floated a tender in 1980 to buy 500,000 tonnes of high speed diesel. A private group complained, relying on a parliamentary committee report and newspaper articles, that the contract was given to Kuo Oil of Hong Kong at US $355 per tonne when another offer was US $350, and that a minister had overruled officers and bypassed the Empowered Committee. The magistrate found no case to answer, and the Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge on 18 April 1983, holding the lower court lacked jurisdiction and there was no case for interference.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
Indian Oil Corporation, the state-owned oil company, floated a tender in 1980 to buy 500,000 tonnes of high speed diesel. A private group complained, relying on a parliamentary committee report and newspaper articles, that the contract was given to Kuo Oil of Hong Kong at US $355 per tonne when another offer was US $350, and that a minister had overruled officers and bypassed the Empowered Committee. The magistrate found no case to answer, and the Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge on 18 April 1983, holding the lower court lacked jurisdiction and there was no case for interference.
Who did it
Indira Gandhi government; Indian Oil Corporation
The evidence
Indian Oil Corporation floated a tender on 18 January 1980 for 500,000 tonnes of high speed diesel to be delivered from March 1980 to December 1980. [1][2]
The offers recorded were 30,000 tonnes from Sitgo, London at US $350 per tonne C&F Bombay, and 400,000–500,000 tonnes from Kuo Oil, Hong Kong at US $355 per tonne C&F Bombay. [1][2]
The Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings raised doubts about the contract given to Kuo Oil and objected that the Empowered Committee procedure was not followed. [1][2]
The complaint alleged that a minister, influenced by an MP, directed Indian Oil Corporation to give the contract to Kuo Oil at a higher price, and that tender terms were altered without notice to other tenderers. [1][2]
The magistrate found no prima facie case and no substance in the complaint; the Delhi High Court held the lower court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the revision. [1][2]
Where it stands today
The magistrate dismissed the complaint; the Delhi High Court dismissed the revision on 18 April 1983. No further proceeding is shown in the sources.
What was done
Indian Oil Corporation floated the tender on 18 January 1980. The Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings examined the contract and raised doubts about the award to Kuo Oil and the bypassing of the Empowered Committee. The Delhi High Court dismissed the private complaint, holding no case to answer was made out.
What it meant for the country
The court record does not establish a quantified loss; it notes that a higher-rate contract would result in extra payment by the Government, but no amount was determined.
The Delhi High Court observed that giving a contract at rates higher than prevailing rates would result in extra payment by the Government, but it did not determine any amount. [1][2]
The court also said it was not known what amount of profit the Indian agent actually made. [1][2]
Step by step
1980-01-18 Indian Oil Corporation floated a tender for the supply of 500,000 tonnes of high speed diesel to be delivered from March 1980 to December 1980. [1][2]
1982-06 The Indian Express published a series of articles by Arun Shourie about the deal; the complaint was mainly based on these articles and the Forty-seventh Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings. [1][2]
1982-09-03 Nirmala Parsad was examined on oath and the case was adjourned for remaining evidence. [1][2]
1983-04-18 The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction and that no case for interference was made out. [1][2]
From 1976, a central law limited how much vacant land in towns and cities a person could hold, and allowed state governments to take the excess. Under rules framed that year, every holder of vacant land had to file a declaration within ninety days, and forms were set out for surrendering surplus land and for seeking permission to transfer land. On 22 March 1999 a central law repealed the 1976 Act. The repeal stands: land already taken over by state governments remains with them; exemption orders already granted remain valid even against any court ruling; payments made for exemptions are not returned; and land not yet taken but already paid for can be restored only if the state's money is refunded.
A law or decision by the government
Urban land ownership
1976
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
From 1976, a central law limited how much vacant land in towns and cities a person could hold, and allowed state governments to take the excess. Under rules framed that year, every holder of vacant land had to file a declaration within ninety days, and forms were set out for surrendering surplus land and for seeking permission to transfer land. On 22 March 1999 a central law repealed the 1976 Act. The repeal stands: land already taken over by state governments remains with them; exemption orders already granted remain valid even against any court ruling; payments made for exemptions are not returned; and land not yet taken but already paid for can be restored only if the state's money is refunded.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
From 1976, a central law limited how much vacant land in towns and cities a person could hold, and allowed state governments to take the excess. Under rules framed that year, every holder of vacant land had to file a declaration within ninety days, and forms were set out for surrendering surplus land and for seeking permission to transfer land. On 22 March 1999 a central law repealed the 1976 Act. The repeal stands: land already taken over by state governments remains with them; exemption orders already granted remain valid even against any court ruling; payments made for exemptions are not returned; and land not yet taken but already paid for can be restored only if the state's money is refunded.
Who did it
Urban land ownership
The evidence
The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was Act 33 of 1976, and the Rules of 1976 were made under its section 46(2). [1][3]
The Repeal Act, 1999 repealed the 1976 Act but did not affect the vesting of vacant land under section 10(3) where possession had already been taken by the State Government or an authorised person or the competent authority. [1][2]
Exemption orders granted under section 20(1) of the 1976 Act, and any action taken under them, remain valid notwithstanding any judgment of any court to the contrary. [1][2]
Payments made to the State Government as a condition for exemption under section 20(1) were saved by the repeal. [1][2]
Where land was deemed vested under section 10(3) but possession had not been taken, and the State Government had paid an amount for it, the land would not be restored unless the amount paid was refunded to the State Government. [1][2]
Where it stands today
The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 stands repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which remains in force. The sources show no pending proceedings; the Repeal Act saved provisions under sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the old Act only insofar as they relate to land whose possession the State has already taken. No state-level repeal enactments are among the sources.
What was done
The central government framed the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, requiring declarations of vacant land within ninety days and prescribing forms for surrendering excess land and for transfers needing the competent authority's permission. The central legislature passed the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which cancelled the 1976 Act while saving land already vested and possessed by state governments, saving exemption orders and payments made under section 20, and providing that un-possessed land for which the State had paid would not be restored without a refund.
What it meant for the country
The cited texts record that the 1976 ceiling law was repealed while completed state takeovers of land and exemptions already granted were kept in force, but they give no figures for land acquired, people affected or money paid, so the consequences are unclear.
The repeal ended the ceiling-and-acquisition mechanism, so the legal tool for preventing concentration of urban land ceased to operate from 22 March 1999, except for land whose possession the State had already taken. [1][2]
People whose land had already been taken over by state governments, or who had paid for exemptions, were left in the same position: the repeal kept those actions intact and kept exemption orders valid even against any judgment of a court to the contrary. [1][2]
The cited sources give no figures for land acquired, people affected or money paid, so the measurable consequences of the 1976 Act and its repeal are not documented in the evidence provided. [1][3]
Step by step
1976 The Central Government made the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 under section 46(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 1976). The Rules required every person holding vacant land to make a declaration under section 21(1) within ninety days of the Act's commencement, in Form V. They prescribed forms for particulars of land held in ten categories (owner, tenant, mortgagee, holder under an irrevocable power of attorney, hire purchase, private trust, Hindu undivided family, housing co-operative society, and others) and required the competent authority's permission under section 27 for transfers. The fee for a section 21(1) declaration was Rs. 10. [3][6]
1999-03-22 The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, dated 22 March 1999, came into force. Section 2 repealed the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 1976). The repeal did not affect: the vesting of vacant land under section 10(3) where possession had already been taken by the State Government or an authorised person or the competent authority; the validity of exemption orders under section 20(1) or any action taken under them, notwithstanding any judgment of any court to the contrary; or any payment made to the State Government as a condition for exemption under section 20(1). Where land was deemed vested under section 10(3) but possession had not been taken, and the State Government had paid an amount for it, the land would not be restored unless the amount paid was refunded to the State Government. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Ordinance, 1999 was itself repealed, with anything done under it saved as if done under the Repeal Act. [1][2]
Forest land in India can be released by the government for mines, farms, roads or buildings only if the central government in Delhi agrees. Before 1980, state governments could make that decision on their own. Parliament passed the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which came into force on 25 October 1980 and replaced an earlier emergency order. It says no state government may de-reserve a forest, use forest land for any non-forest purpose, lease forest land to a private party, or clear naturally grown trees for replanting, without the prior approval of the Central Government. The Supreme Court later held the law applies to all forests, whoever owns them. The Act is in force today.
A law or decision by the government
Forest land and state powers
1980
Benefit to the nation
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Forest land in India can be released by the government for mines, farms, roads or buildings only if the central government in Delhi agrees. Before 1980, state governments could make that decision on their own. Parliament passed the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which came into force on 25 October 1980 and replaced an earlier emergency order. It says no state government may de-reserve a forest, use forest land for any non-forest purpose, lease forest land to a private party, or clear naturally grown trees for replanting, without the prior approval of the Central Government. The Supreme Court later held the law applies to all forests, whoever owns them. The Act is in force today.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Forest land in India can be released by the government for mines, farms, roads or buildings only if the central government in Delhi agrees. Before 1980, state governments could make that decision on their own. Parliament passed the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which came into force on 25 October 1980 and replaced an earlier emergency order. It says no state government may de-reserve a forest, use forest land for any non-forest purpose, lease forest land to a private party, or clear naturally grown trees for replanting, without the prior approval of the Central Government. The Supreme Court later held the law applies to all forests, whoever owns them. The Act is in force today.
Who did it
Forest land and state powers
The evidence
The Act came into force on 25 October 1980 and extends to the whole of India. [1]
Section 2 provides that, notwithstanding anything in any State law, no State Government or other authority may, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, order that a reserved forest cease to be reserved (clause i), that forest land be used for any non-forest purpose (clause ii), that forest land be leased to any private person, authority, corporation, agency or other organisation (clause iii), or that forest land be cleared of naturally grown trees for reafforestation (clause iv). [1][2]
The Explanation to Section 2 defines 'non-forest purpose' as the breaking up or clearing of any forest land for the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants, or for any purpose other than reafforestation. It excludes work relating to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, such as silvicultural operations, check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications, fencing, bridges, check dams, waterholes, trenches, pipelines, government zoos and safaris, and eco-tourism facilities in approved plans. [1][2]
The Central Government may, by order, specify the terms and conditions under which any survey such as reconnaissance, prospecting, investigation or exploration, including seismic survey, shall not be treated as a non-forest purpose. [1][2]
Section 3C empowers the Central Government to issue directions to any authority under the Central Government, State Government or Union territory Administration, or to any organisation recognised by them, as may be necessary for implementation of the Act. [6]
Where it stands today
The Act is in force. Judicial interpretation of the Act continues; the Supreme Court's January 2024 decision in Sheikh Nizamuddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh applied the Act's principles in a case concerning alleged encroachment on forest land in Madhya Pradesh.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which came into force on 25 October 1980, replacing the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Act, by its Section 2, bars state governments and other authorities from ordering that a reserved forest cease to be reserved, that forest land be used for any non-forest purpose, that forest land be leased to any private person or body, or that naturally grown trees be cleared for reafforestation, except with the prior approval of the Central Government.
What it meant for the country
The Act and its judicial interpretation centralised control over forest land diversion and, as the Supreme Court held, extended its protection to all forests irrespective of ownership.
State governments lost the power to unilaterally de-reserve forests or divert forest land; the Central Government's prior approval became mandatory for any non-forest use, including the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants, and for mining. [1][2]
The Supreme Court, as recorded in Sheikh Nizamuddin, directed that all ongoing activity within any forest in any State without the prior approval of the Central Government must cease forthwith, extending to the running of saw mills, veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral. [4]
The law's protection was judicially extended beyond government-owned or statutorily reserved forests to all forests, including any area recorded as forest in Government record, irrespective of ownership or classification. [4]
A person aggrieved by a State Government order under Section 2 gained a statutory right of appeal to the National Green Tribunal, established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. [2]
Step by step
1980-10 The Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance No. 17 of 1980) was issued, preceding the Act. [1][3]
1980-10-25 The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was deemed to have come into force. Section 1 provides that the Act extends to the whole of India. [1]
1997 As reported in the Sheikh Nizamuddin judgment, the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India held that the Act was enacted to check further deforestation which results in ecological imbalance, and that its provisions must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification. The Court stated that 'forest land' in Section 2 includes any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of ownership. [4]
2010 Section 2-A of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order or decision of a State Government or other authority made under Section 2, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, may file an appeal to the National Green Tribunal. [2]
2024-01-19 The Supreme Court in Sheikh Nizamuddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh reiterated that the Act was enacted to check further deforestation, and quoted the Godavarman holding that the Act applies to all forests irrespective of ownership or classification. The Court recorded the direction that all ongoing activity within any forest without the prior approval of the Central Government must cease forthwith, and that running saw mills, veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes not permissible without central approval. [4]
In 1976, Parliament passed the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. Two parts of it, sections 4 and 55, gave the government's policy goals priority over the fundamental rights to equality and free speech, and removed all limits on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, also barring courts from reviewing amendments. A textile company, Minerva Mills, challenged these sections. On 31 July 1980, the Supreme Court struck down both sections, holding that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is limited and cannot be used to destroy its basic structure. The decision stands and the basic structure doctrine remains the law.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
42nd Amendment; basic structure doctrine
1980
Benefit to the nation
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980
In 1976, Parliament passed the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. Two parts of it, sections 4 and 55, gave the government's policy goals priority over the fundamental rights to equality and free speech, and removed all limits on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, also barring courts from reviewing amendments. A textile company, Minerva Mills, challenged these sections. On 31 July 1980, the Supreme Court struck down both sections, holding that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is limited and cannot be used to destroy its basic structure. The decision stands and the basic structure doctrine remains the law.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
In 1976, Parliament passed the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. Two parts of it, sections 4 and 55, gave the government's policy goals priority over the fundamental rights to equality and free speech, and removed all limits on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, also barring courts from reviewing amendments. A textile company, Minerva Mills, challenged these sections. On 31 July 1980, the Supreme Court struck down both sections, holding that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is limited and cannot be used to destroy its basic structure. The decision stands and the basic structure doctrine remains the law.
Who did it
42nd Amendment; basic structure doctrine
The evidence
The Supreme Court held sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act void and beyond Parliament's amending power. [1][2]
Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment gave primacy to Directive Principles over the fundamental rights in Articles 14 and 19. [1][2]
Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment removed all limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and deprived courts of the power to question any amendment. [1][2]
The court relied on the majority judgment in Kesavananda Bharati, which held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 cannot be exercised so as to damage the basic features of the Constitution or destroy its basic structure. [1][2]
The court held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. [1]
Where it stands today
The matter concluded with the Supreme Court's decision of 31 July 1980. No appeal is pending. The basic structure doctrine has been cited in later Supreme Court decisions.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, including sections 4 and 55. The Supreme Court, by majority, held on 31 July 1980 that both sections were void and beyond Parliament's amending power.
What it meant for the country
The Supreme Court's decision preserved the basic structure doctrine, keeping Parliament's amending power limited and protecting the fundamental rights in Articles 14, 19 and 21 from being overridden.
The Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot expand its amending power to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or destroy its basic features; a limited amending power is one of the basic features of the Indian Constitution. [1]
The Supreme Court held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, so they cannot be obliterated by a constitutional amendment. [1]
The court's power to review constitutional amendments was preserved, because the clause in section 55 that deprived courts of the power to call in question any amendment was struck down. [1][2]
Step by step
1976 Parliament enacted the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 4 amended Article 31C to give primacy to Directive Principles over the fundamental rights in Articles 14 and 19; section 55 amended Article 368 to remove all limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and to deprive courts of the power to question any amendment. [1][2]
1980-07-31 The Supreme Court held by majority that sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act are void and beyond the amending power of Parliament, since they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution and destroy its basic structure. [1][2]
The National Security Act, 1980 is a law that lets the central and state governments detain a person without charge or trial for up to twelve months, to prevent acts said to harm public order, national security, or essential supplies and services. Parliament passed the Act in 1980, after an earlier Ordinance. The Supreme Court upheld the Act's constitutional validity in 1982, and it remains in force; courts have cancelled some individual detention orders where the reasons given were too old or remote.
A law or decision by the government
Preventive detention; civil liberties
1980
Mixed
National Security Act, 1980
The National Security Act, 1980 is a law that lets the central and state governments detain a person without charge or trial for up to twelve months, to prevent acts said to harm public order, national security, or essential supplies and services. Parliament passed the Act in 1980, after an earlier Ordinance. The Supreme Court upheld the Act's constitutional validity in 1982, and it remains in force; courts have cancelled some individual detention orders where the reasons given were too old or remote.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The National Security Act, 1980 is a law that lets the central and state governments detain a person without charge or trial for up to twelve months, to prevent acts said to harm public order, national security, or essential supplies and services. Parliament passed the Act in 1980, after an earlier Ordinance. The Supreme Court upheld the Act's constitutional validity in 1982, and it remains in force; courts have cancelled some individual detention orders where the reasons given were too old or remote.
Who did it
Preventive detention; civil liberties
The evidence
Under section 3, the Central Government or a State Government may order detention of a person if satisfied it is necessary to prevent acts prejudicial to the defence of India, relations with foreign powers, the security of India, or, for a foreigner, to regulate continued presence or arrange expulsion; or to prevent acts prejudicial to the security of the State, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. [4]
The maximum period for which any person may be detained under a confirmed detention order is twelve months from the date of detention. [1]
In every case where a detention order is made under the Act, the appropriate Government must, within three weeks from the date of detention, place before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the order was made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected. [1]
A detention order may be revoked or modified at any time by the State Government to which the officer is subordinate or by the Central Government. [1]
The expiry or revocation of a detention order does not bar another detention order against the same person, but where no fresh facts have arisen, the maximum period for the subsequent detention cannot extend beyond twelve months from the date of detention under the earlier order. [1]
Where it stands today
The National Security Act, 1980 remains in force. Individual detention orders have been decided by the Supreme Court as shown in the timeline; no pending appeal or proceeding is recorded in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the National Security Act, 1980, giving the central and state governments power to order preventive detention without charge for up to twelve months. The Supreme Court upheld the Act's constitutional validity in A.K. Roy v. Union of India in 1982. In individual cases, the Supreme Court cancelled a detention order in 1983 because the grounds were stale, and upheld detention orders in the Fitrat Raza Khan case in 1981 and the Jitender Tyagi case in 1989.
What it meant for the country
The Act permits detention without trial for up to twelve months, but the Supreme Court has cancelled some individual detention orders where the grounds were too old, showing the courts' check on the power.
The National Security Act, 1980 permits the central and state governments to detain a person without charge or trial for up to twelve months from the date of detention, curtailing personal liberty. [1][4]
The Supreme Court in Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi (1983) cancelled a detention order because the grounds related to incidents from 1978 and 1980 were stale, protecting the detainee's liberty in that case. [3]
In A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982), as reported, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the National Security Act, meaning preventive detention without trial remains lawful in India. [7]
Step by step
1980 The National Security Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance 11 of 1980) was brought in. Section 17 of the Act later saved detention orders made under State laws that were in force before this Ordinance began. [1][2]
1980 Parliament enacted the National Security Act, 1980 (Act No. 65 of 1980). Section 3 empowers the Central Government or a State Government to order detention of a person if satisfied it is necessary to prevent acts prejudicial to the defence of India, relations with foreign powers, the security of India, the security of the State, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. A District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also be authorised to make such orders, and an order by such an officer must be approved by the State Government within twelve days. [4]
1981-12-01 The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition of Fitrat Raza Khan, who had been detained by order of the District Magistrate, Moradabad, under section 3(2) of the Act. The court held that the grounds, including an incident of communal riots on 13 August 1980 and an alleged incitement of Muslims to communal violence on 24 July 1981, were not vague or stale and pertained to public order. It also found no undue delay by the State Government in considering his representation of 8 August 1981, which was rejected on 24 August 1981. [6]
1982 In A.K. Roy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the National Security Act, 1980, subject to certain interpretations, holding that the state's power of preventive detention is not absolute and must operate within the constitutional safeguards under Article 22. This is as reported by a legal commentary site. [7]
1983-10-07 In Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., the Supreme Court cancelled (quashed) a detention order made on 6 May 1983 under section 3(2) of the Act. The court held that grounds relating to incidents of 1978 and 1980 were stale and not proximate to the time of the detention order, and that there was no provision in the Act at the time similar to section 5A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, that would allow the order to stand on the remaining grounds alone. The detention order was held to contravene Article 22(5) of the Constitution. [3]
1984 The National Security (Second Amendment) Act, 1984 inserted a severability provision, providing that where a detention order is made on two or more grounds, the order is deemed to have been made separately on each ground and is not invalid merely because one or more grounds are vague, non-existent, not relevant, not connected, or invalid for any other reason. [1]
1989-10-03 In Jitender Tyagi v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a detention order dated 19 January 1989 passed under the Act. The court held that in computing the twelve-day period under section 3(4) for State Government approval of an officer's detention order, the day on which the order was passed is excluded; the order was approved on 31 January 1989 and was therefore within twelve days. The court rejected arguments about non-supply of the delegation order and alleged non-application of mind. [5]
Was Sonia Gandhi's name on the voter list before she became a citizen? An allegation, now back before a magistrate
Sonia Gandhi became an Indian citizen on 30 April 1983. BJP leaders and a complainant say her name was already on the New Delhi voter list in 1980, was taken off in 1982, and was put back in 1983. The complainant asked a Delhi court to order a police case. A magistrate refused in September 2025. On 21 September 2026 a higher court cancelled that refusal and told the magistrate to decide again. Nothing has been proved.
Only a claim so far, not proven
Sonia Gandhi
1980
Was Sonia Gandhi's name on the voter list before she became a citizen? An allegation, now back before a magistrate
Sonia Gandhi became an Indian citizen on 30 April 1983. BJP leaders and a complainant say her name was already on the New Delhi voter list in 1980, was taken off in 1982, and was put back in 1983. The complainant asked a Delhi court to order a police case. A magistrate refused in September 2025. On 21 September 2026 a higher court cancelled that refusal and told the magistrate to decide again. Nothing has been proved.
Only a claim so far, not proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Someone has made this claim. No case is registered and no court or inquiry has found it to be true.
What happened
Sonia Gandhi became an Indian citizen on 30 April 1983. BJP leaders and a complainant say her name was already on the New Delhi voter list in 1980, was taken off in 1982, and was put back in 1983. The complainant asked a Delhi court to order a police case. A magistrate refused in September 2025. On 21 September 2026 a higher court cancelled that refusal and told the magistrate to decide again. Nothing has been proved.
Who did it
Sonia Gandhi, Congress MP and former party president, is named in a private complaint by Vikas Tripathi, a Delhi lawyer. No document we found names the election official who is said to have entered her name in 1980.
The evidence
What is alleged: as reported by The Tribune, the BJP's Amit Malviya said in August 2025 that her name was at serial number 388, polling station 145, in the 1980 New Delhi list, was removed in 1982, and was entered again in 1983 with 1 January 1983 as the qualifying date. [1]
What the first court said: as reported by Bar and Bench, the magistrate's order of 11 September 2025 refused an inquiry. It said citizenship is a matter for the central government and voter lists are a matter for the Election Commission. [6]
What Sonia Gandhi says: as reported by The Tribune, her written reply calls the complaint “wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated, and an abuse of the process of law”, and says no application by her to be put on the list has been produced. [7]
What the higher court said: as reported by ANI and The Week, the Special Judge's order of 21 September 2026 said the magistrate had not given proper reasons and had not asked the police for a report. As reported by India Legal, the judge did not decide whether a police case should be registered; that is left to the magistrate. [8][9][10]
Where it stands today
The complaint is back before the magistrate at the Rouse Avenue court, Delhi, and was listed for 29 September 2026. The higher court cancelled the earlier refusal only because it lacked reasons; it did not say the allegation is true and did not order a police case. Sonia Gandhi's side says the complaint is politically motivated and the documents are not genuine. The complainant says the 1980 entry shows forgery. We found no statement from the Election Commission. This entry rests on press reports of the court orders; the orders themselves and the voter-list pages were not available to us.
What was done
This is an allegation. No police case has been registered and no court has found that any offence took place. The claim is that her name was on the voter list, not that she voted: no source we found says she cast a vote before becoming a citizen. The complainant relies on photocopies of voter-list pages; Sonia Gandhi's lawyers say the documents are not genuine.
What it meant for the country
There is an allegation about a voter-list entry, no police case, and no evidence that she voted before 30 April 1983.
Nothing is established. No police case has been registered and no court has made any finding against Sonia Gandhi. [8][10]
Her lawyers say that after more than 40 years it is not possible to gather evidence. [7]
Step by step
1980 According to the BJP and the complainant, Sonia Gandhi's name appears on the New Delhi voter list. This is an allegation based on photocopied list pages. [1][4]
1982 According to the same allegation, her name is removed from the list. [1][4]
1983-04-30 She becomes an Indian citizen. The BJP alleges her name had already been entered again in the 1983 list. [1]
2025-08-13 Amit Malviya of the BJP makes the allegation in public. The Congress responds by accusing the BJP of working with the Election Commission. [2]
2025-09-04 Vikas Tripathi's request for a police investigation comes before a magistrate at the Rouse Avenue court, Delhi. [3]
2025-09-11 The magistrate rejects the request. [5][6]
2025-12-09 The complainant asks a higher court to review that order. The Special Judge sends notice to Sonia Gandhi and the Delhi Police. [6]
2026-02-07 Sonia Gandhi's reply opposing the request is reported. [7]
2026-09-21 The Special Judge cancels the magistrate's refusal and sends the matter back for a fresh decision with reasons. The next hearing is fixed for 29 September 2026. [8][9][11]
Antulay cement trust case: Bombay High Court findings and Supreme Court judgment
A.R. Antulay was Chief Minister of Maharashtra from 1980 to January 1982. A private complaint accused him of using his office to collect funds through trusts he had set up. A Bombay High Court judge passed an order on 23 September 1981 about cement distribution, and Antulay resigned on 20 January 1982. The Supreme Court first sent the case to the Bombay High Court, where a judge framed 79 charges, but a seven-judge Supreme Court bench in 1988 cancelled that transfer and sent the case back to a Special Court. As of December 1991, the Maharashtra government had not appointed a Special Judge, so the case was stalled.
Being investigated, nothing proven
A.R. Antulay, Chief Minister of Maharashtra
1981
Harm to the nation
Antulay cement trust case: Bombay High Court findings and Supreme Court judgment
A.R. Antulay was Chief Minister of Maharashtra from 1980 to January 1982. A private complaint accused him of using his office to collect funds through trusts he had set up. A Bombay High Court judge passed an order on 23 September 1981 about cement distribution, and Antulay resigned on 20 January 1982. The Supreme Court first sent the case to the Bombay High Court, where a judge framed 79 charges, but a seven-judge Supreme Court bench in 1988 cancelled that transfer and sent the case back to a Special Court. As of December 1991, the Maharashtra government had not appointed a Special Judge, so the case was stalled.
Being investigated, nothing proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators or a court are still looking into this. Nothing has been proved.
What happened
A.R. Antulay was Chief Minister of Maharashtra from 1980 to January 1982. A private complaint accused him of using his office to collect funds through trusts he had set up. A Bombay High Court judge passed an order on 23 September 1981 about cement distribution, and Antulay resigned on 20 January 1982. The Supreme Court first sent the case to the Bombay High Court, where a judge framed 79 charges, but a seven-judge Supreme Court bench in 1988 cancelled that transfer and sent the case back to a Special Court. As of December 1991, the Maharashtra government had not appointed a Special Judge, so the case was stalled.
Who did it
A.R. Antulay, Chief Minister of Maharashtra
The evidence
A.R. Antulay was Chief Minister of Maharashtra from 1980 until his resignation on 20 January 1982. [4]
A private complaint was filed on 11 September 1981 alleging that Antulay had abused his office as Chief Minister. [4]
A Bombay High Court Single Judge passed an order on 23 September 1981 in a writ petition challenging cement distribution. [4]
Special Judge R.B. Sule discharged Antulay on 25 July 1983. [4][2]
The Supreme Court on 16 February 1984 set aside the discharge and transferred the cases to the Bombay High Court. [4][1]
Where it stands today
The criminal case was sent back to a Special Court under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 by the Supreme Court's 29 April 1988 judgment. As of the 10 December 1991 Supreme Court order, the Maharashtra government had not appointed a Special Judge, so the case was stalled; the complainant had said he was willing to continue. The High Court trial and the 79 charges framed there were quashed.
What was done
Antulay resigned as Chief Minister on 20 January 1982. The Supreme Court transferred his trial to the Bombay High Court in 1984, then a seven-judge bench in 1988 cancelled that transfer and sent the case back to a Special Court. The Maharashtra government did not appoint a Special Judge for almost two years after the 1988 judgment.
What it meant for the country
The record shows a Chief Minister resigned and the criminal case against him was stalled for years after the Supreme Court cancelled the High Court trial, with no Special Judge appointed for almost two years.
Antulay resigned as Chief Minister on 20 January 1982 after the Bombay High Court's 23 September 1981 order on cement distribution. [4]
The Supreme Court's 29 April 1988 judgment made the High Court proceedings after 16 February 1984, including evidence recorded over one year, non est, so the trial had to restart before a Special Court. [1]
Almost two years after the 1988 judgment, the Maharashtra government had not appointed a Special Judge, leaving the case stalled. [1]
The complainant had to appear before the Supreme Court in April 1990 to say he was willing to continue the prosecution. [1]
Step by step
1980 A.R. Antulay was Chief Minister of Maharashtra from 1980 until he resigned on 20 January 1982. [4]
1981-09-11 A private complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, alleging that Antulay, as Chief Minister, had abused his office. [4]
1981-09-23 A Bombay High Court Single Judge passed a detailed order granting a rule nisi in Writ Petition No. 1165 of 1981, which challenged the method of distribution of ad hoc cement allotments in Maharashtra. [4]
1982-01-20 Antulay submitted his resignation as Chief Minister; it became effective the same day. [4]
1983-07-25 Special Judge R.B. Sule discharged Antulay in Special Case No. 24 of 1982 and Special Case No. 3 of 1983. [4][2]
1984-02-16 The Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay set aside the discharge and directed that the cases be withdrawn from the Special Judge and transferred to the Bombay High Court for trial. [4][1]
1986-04-17 The Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay dealt with the framing of charges and said the case would go back to the High Court for trial on the charges framed. [3]
1986-10-29 The Supreme Court directed that the case be listed before a bench of seven judges. [2]
1988-04-29 A seven-judge Supreme Court bench quashed all proceedings in the Special Case taken after the 16 February 1984 directions; the case had to proceed before a Special Court under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. [1]
1990-03 An advocate, Mr More, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court about the case. [1]
1990-04-16 The complainant told the Supreme Court he wanted to continue the prosecution before a Special Judge to be appointed by the State Government. [1]
1991-12-10 The Supreme Court noted that almost two years after the 29 April 1988 judgment, the State Government had not appointed a Special Judge, and the record had not been sent to one. [1]
The Antulay cement allotments and the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan, 1981
In 1981, cement was scarce in Maharashtra and its distribution was controlled by the state government. A.R. Antulay, the Chief Minister, set up trusts including the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan, and was accused of giving cement from the government's discretionary quota to builders who donated to those trusts. The Bombay High Court, in a judgment by Justice B. Lentin on 12 January 1982, found the allegations justified, and Antulay resigned as Chief Minister.
Accused in court, not yet proven
A.R. Antulay (Chief Minister, Maharashtra)
1981
Harm to the nation
The Antulay cement allotments and the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan, 1981
In 1981, cement was scarce in Maharashtra and its distribution was controlled by the state government. A.R. Antulay, the Chief Minister, set up trusts including the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan, and was accused of giving cement from the government's discretionary quota to builders who donated to those trusts. The Bombay High Court, in a judgment by Justice B. Lentin on 12 January 1982, found the allegations justified, and Antulay resigned as Chief Minister.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators have filed charges in court. The trial is not over, so nobody has been found guilty.
What happened
In 1981, cement was scarce in Maharashtra and its distribution was controlled by the state government. A.R. Antulay, the Chief Minister, set up trusts including the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan, and was accused of giving cement from the government's discretionary quota to builders who donated to those trusts. The Bombay High Court, in a judgment by Justice B. Lentin on 12 January 1982, found the allegations justified, and Antulay resigned as Chief Minister.
Who did it
A.R. Antulay (Chief Minister, Maharashtra)
The evidence
A.R. Antulay was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra from 1980 to January 1982. [2]
The Bombay High Court, in a judgment by Justice B. Lentin on 12 January 1982, held as justified the allegations that Antulay had arbitrarily allotted cement from the ad hoc quota to certain builders in consideration for donations to two trusts floated by him. [5]
Antulay resigned as Chief Minister following the High Court judgment, and the Governor accepted the resignation. [2][5]
The Supreme Court on 17 April 1986 held that a prima facie case had been established by the prosecution and directed that charges be framed against Antulay. [4]
As of 10 December 1991, the criminal case was still pending, and the Supreme Court recorded that the State Government had not appointed a Special Judge for almost two years after the April 1988 decision. [2]
Where it stands today
The criminal prosecution was pending before a Special Judge as of December 1991; the final outcome of the prosecution is not stated in the sources. The 1982 Bombay High Court judgment and Antulay's resignation are concluded.
What was done
A.R. Antulay, as Chief Minister of Maharashtra, controlled the allotment of cement. The Bombay High Court found that he arbitrarily allotted cement from the ad hoc quota to certain builders in return for donations to trusts he had set up, including the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan. He resigned as Chief Minister after the judgment. The criminal prosecution against him reached the stage of charges being framed, but the final outcome is not documented in the sources.
What it meant for the country
A sitting Chief Minister was found by the High Court to have arbitrarily allotted scarce cement in return for donations to his trusts, leading to his resignation and a criminal case that was still unresolved a decade after the first complaint.
A sitting Chief Minister of Maharashtra resigned from office after the Bombay High Court found the allegations against him justified. [2][5]
The criminal prosecution remained unresolved for a decade, from the complaint filed in September 1981 to the Supreme Court hearing in December 1991, with the case still pending before a Special Judge. [2]
Step by step
1980 A.R. Antulay became Chief Minister of Maharashtra, an office he held until January 1982. [2]
1981-09-11 R.S. Nayak filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay (Criminal Case No. 24 of 1982). [2]
1982-01-12 The Bombay High Court, in a judgment by Justice B. Lentin, allowed the writ petition and held as justified the allegations that Antulay had arbitrarily allotted cement from the ad hoc quota to certain builders in consideration for donations to two trusts floated by him. [2][5]
1982-01-12 Antulay resigned as Chief Minister of Maharashtra following the High Court judgment. The Governor accepted the resignation. [2][5]
1982-04-12 The Bombay High Court dismissed Special Criminal Application No. 1742 of 1981 filed by the complainant. [2]
1982-08-09 R.S. Nayak lodged a complaint alleging that Antulay, as Chief Minister, had created seven trusts, one of them the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan, and extended favours to those who made donations to the trusts. [4]
1984-02-16 The Supreme Court, in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, held that a Special Judge can take cognizance of offences on a private complaint, and dismissed Antulay's appeal against the Bombay High Court's decision. [3]
1986-04-17 The Supreme Court, in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, held that a prima facie case had been established by the prosecution in respect of the allegations, set aside the discharge, and directed that charges be framed. [4]
1988-04-29 A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court quashed all proceedings in the Special Case taken subsequent to the directions of 16 February 1984, with the result that the case had to be proceeded with before the Special Court under the 1952 Act. [2]
1991-12-10 The Supreme Court, in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, heard the case concerning the delay in the prosecution. The judgment records that almost two years had passed since the April 1988 decision without the State Government appointing a Special Judge, and the case was still pending. [2]
A special law for Assam on illegal migrants, cancelled by the Supreme Court in 2005
In 1983 Indira Gandhi's government passed a law that applied only to Assam. It set up special tribunals to decide who was an illegal migrant, under rules different from the rest of India. In July 2005 the Supreme Court said this law went against the Constitution and cancelled it. The court ordered that Assam use the same system as the rest of the country.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Illegal migrants in Assam; tribunal powers
1983
Harm to the nation
A special law for Assam on illegal migrants, cancelled by the Supreme Court in 2005
In 1983 Indira Gandhi's government passed a law that applied only to Assam. It set up special tribunals to decide who was an illegal migrant, under rules different from the rest of India. In July 2005 the Supreme Court said this law went against the Constitution and cancelled it. The court ordered that Assam use the same system as the rest of the country.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
In 1983 Indira Gandhi's government passed a law that applied only to Assam. It set up special tribunals to decide who was an illegal migrant, under rules different from the rest of India. In July 2005 the Supreme Court said this law went against the Constitution and cancelled it. The court ordered that Assam use the same system as the rest of the country.
Who did it
Illegal migrants in Assam; tribunal powers
The evidence
The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 was enacted in 1983 by the Indira Gandhi government. [3][6]
The Act applied only to Assam; the rest of India continued under the Foreigners Act, 1946. [2][7]
The Act set up special tribunals to detect and expel illegal migrants from Assam. [4][7]
Under the Act, the burden of establishing that a person was an illegal migrant lay on the complainant or the referring authority, and an elaborate procedure before tribunals had to be followed. [2]
The Act excluded migrants who entered India before 25 March 1971 from the illegal-migration accusation. [4][6]
Where it stands today
The Act was struck down by the Supreme Court on 12 July 2005. A later proceeding, Sarbananda Sonowal (II) v. Union of India, concerned the Central Government's 10 February 2006 subordinate legislation.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Act in 1983 under the Indira Gandhi government. The Supreme Court held the Act and the 1984 Rules ultra vires and struck them down, directing that adequate tribunals be established under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
What it meant for the country
The record shows the Act was harmful: the Supreme Court found it was the biggest hurdle and main impediment to identifying and deporting illegal migrants in Assam, and its removal restored the Foreigners Act framework.
The Supreme Court held that the IMDT Act and rules had created the biggest hurdle and were the main impediment or barrier in the identification and deportation of illegal migrants, and struck down the Act. [4][6][7]
Under the Act, the burden of establishing that a person was an illegal migrant lay on the complainant or referring authority, making detection of illegal migrants practically impossible, unlike the Foreigners Act, 1946 which placed the burden on the person. [2]
After the judgment, detection of foreigners in Assam reverted to the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) framework, restoring the reverse burden of proof. [7]
The Court held that large-scale illegal migration into a State can amount to external aggression under Article 355, and that the Union's duty under Article 355 is enforceable. [2][7]
Step by step
1983 Parliament enacted the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983. [3][6]
1984 The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 were in force under the Act and were later challenged. [5]
2000 Sarbananda Sonowal filed Writ Petition (C) No. 131 of 2000 under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the IMDT Act and the 1984 Rules. [5][10]
2005-07-12 The Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India declared the IMDT Act and the Rules made under it ultra vires the Constitution and struck them down. The Court directed the establishment of adequate tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. [9][11][2][7]
2006-02-10 The Central Government issued the Foreigners (Tribunals) Amendment Order, 2006, rendering the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 inapplicable to Assam. [1]
Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983
In 1983, during the Punjab insurgency, Parliament gave the armed forces in Punjab and the Union territory of Chandigarh special powers to arrest people without a warrant, search premises, break locks, stop and seize vehicles, and even fire upon people to the point of causing death in areas declared 'disturbed'. The law replaced an earlier presidential ordinance of 15 October 1983 and came into force the same day. Nothing in the record shows the Act has been repealed or struck down by a court, so it stands as enacted.
A law or decision by the government
Armed forces powers in Punjab
1983
Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983
In 1983, during the Punjab insurgency, Parliament gave the armed forces in Punjab and the Union territory of Chandigarh special powers to arrest people without a warrant, search premises, break locks, stop and seize vehicles, and even fire upon people to the point of causing death in areas declared 'disturbed'. The law replaced an earlier presidential ordinance of 15 October 1983 and came into force the same day. Nothing in the record shows the Act has been repealed or struck down by a court, so it stands as enacted.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1983, during the Punjab insurgency, Parliament gave the armed forces in Punjab and the Union territory of Chandigarh special powers to arrest people without a warrant, search premises, break locks, stop and seize vehicles, and even fire upon people to the point of causing death in areas declared 'disturbed'. The law replaced an earlier presidential ordinance of 15 October 1983 and came into force the same day. Nothing in the record shows the Act has been repealed or struck down by a court, so it stands as enacted.
Who did it
Armed forces powers in Punjab
The evidence
The Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 is Act No. 34 of 1983, enacted by Parliament on 8 December 1983. [5][6][16]
The Act extends to the whole of the State of Punjab and the Union territory of Chandigarh and is deemed to have come into force on 15 October 1983. [4][13][6]
'Armed forces' under the Act means military forces and air forces operating as land forces, and includes any other armed forces of the Union so operating. [4][16]
Under Section 3, if the Governor of Punjab, the Administrator of Chandigarh, or the Central Government is of opinion that an area is in a disturbed or dangerous condition requiring armed forces in aid of civil power, they may declare it a disturbed area by notification in the Official Gazette. [7][16][6]
Under Section 4, any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed forces may in a disturbed area fire upon or otherwise use force even to the causing of death, destroy arms dumps and fortified positions, arrest without warrant, enter and search premises without warrant, and stop, search and seize vehicles or vessels. [14][16][15]
Where it stands today
Nothing in the record shows any pending challenge to, or repeal of, the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983. Source 18 indicates that a large number of Special Leave Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court concerning this Act, but the sources do not state their outcome or whether any proceedings are still pending.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 on 8 December 1983, replacing the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Ordinance, 1983 which the President had promulgated on 15 October 1983. The Act allows the Governor of Punjab, the Administrator of Chandigarh, or the Central Government to declare any area 'disturbed' and gives armed forces personnel the power to fire upon people, destroy positions, arrest without warrant, search without warrant, and stop, search and seize vehicles.
What it meant for the country
The documents establish what powers the Act conferred but contain no official figures on deaths, detentions, searches or other consequences flowing from its use, so the impact is unclear.
Armed forces personnel were empowered by the Act to fire upon and kill persons in disturbed areas without prior judicial review, arrest without warrant, and search premises by breaking locks, expanding coercive powers of the state in Punjab and Chandigarh. [16][14][4]
As per lawgratis.com, the Act has been criticised for alleged violations of civil liberties and human rights abuses, and the Supreme Court has discussed the scope and limitations of armed forces' powers under special powers acts. [8]
Step by step
1983-10-07 The President promulgated the Punjab Disturbed Areas Ordinance, 1983 (5 of 1983) and the Chandigarh Disturbed Areas Ordinance, 1983 (6 of 1983) to deal with what the Statement of Objects and Reasons describes as 'the extraordinary situation which had arisen in Punjab and Chandigarh, as a result of the terrorist activities of the extremists; terrorists and secessionist elements in Punjab and Chandigarh'. [16]
1983-10-15 The President promulgated the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Ordinance, 1983 (9 of 1983) to enable law-enforcing agencies to seek the assistance of the armed forces in disturbed areas of Punjab and Chandigarh. The Act is deemed to have come into force on this date. [16][13][4]
1983-12-08 Parliament enacted the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 (Act No. 34 of 1983). Sections of the Act give armed forces personnel power in a disturbed area to fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against persons contravening prohibitions on assembly of five or more persons or carrying weapons; destroy arms dumps, fortified positions or shelters used for armed attacks; arrest without warrant persons who have committed or are suspected of committing a cognizable offence; enter and search premises without warrant; and stop, search and seize vehicles or vessels. [5][6][16][14]
1983-12-08 The Act repealed the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Ordinance, 1983 (9 of 1983), with a saving clause that anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance is deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act. [10][12][16]
Bhopal gas disaster: Anderson's departure and the 1989 settlement
On the night of 2–3 December 1984, a toxic gas called methyl isocyanate leaked from a Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, killing thousands and injuring hundreds of thousands. Warren Anderson, the American chairman of Union Carbide Corporation, was arrested on 7 December 1984 and released on bail the same day by Bhopal Police on a personal bond of ₹25,000, after which he left India and never returned. The Government of India and Union Carbide reached a settlement of US$470 million, which the Supreme Court recorded on 14 February 1989; criminal proceedings were quashed as part of that settlement, then restored in 1991. A Bhopal court delivered its judgment on 7 June 2010, and the Supreme Court dismissed a curative petition on 14 March 2023.
Found guilty by a court
Rajiv Gandhi government; Madhya Pradesh government (Arjun Singh)
1984
Harm to the nation
Bhopal gas disaster: Anderson's departure and the 1989 settlement
On the night of 2–3 December 1984, a toxic gas called methyl isocyanate leaked from a Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, killing thousands and injuring hundreds of thousands. Warren Anderson, the American chairman of Union Carbide Corporation, was arrested on 7 December 1984 and released on bail the same day by Bhopal Police on a personal bond of ₹25,000, after which he left India and never returned. The Government of India and Union Carbide reached a settlement of US$470 million, which the Supreme Court recorded on 14 February 1989; criminal proceedings were quashed as part of that settlement, then restored in 1991. A Bhopal court delivered its judgment on 7 June 2010, and the Supreme Court dismissed a curative petition on 14 March 2023.
Found guilty by a court
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court held a trial and found the person guilty.
What happened
On the night of 2–3 December 1984, a toxic gas called methyl isocyanate leaked from a Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, killing thousands and injuring hundreds of thousands. Warren Anderson, the American chairman of Union Carbide Corporation, was arrested on 7 December 1984 and released on bail the same day by Bhopal Police on a personal bond of ₹25,000, after which he left India and never returned. The Government of India and Union Carbide reached a settlement of US$470 million, which the Supreme Court recorded on 14 February 1989; criminal proceedings were quashed as part of that settlement, then restored in 1991. A Bhopal court delivered its judgment on 7 June 2010, and the Supreme Court dismissed a curative petition on 14 March 2023.
Who did it
Rajiv Gandhi government; Madhya Pradesh government (Arjun Singh)
The evidence
The gas leak occurred between 0030 and 0045 hours on the night of 2–3 December 1984, when MIC escaped from tank No. E610 at the Bhopal factory of Union Carbide India Limited. [1]
Warren Anderson was the Chairman of Union Carbide Corporation and was shown as Accused No. 1 in the chargesheet. [1][2]
Anderson was arrested on 7 December 1984 and released on bail the same day on a personal bond of ₹25,000 to the satisfaction of Bhopal Police. [1][2]
After executing the personal bond, Anderson left India and never returned. [2]
The CBI filed the chargesheet on 1 December 1987 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, citing 12 accused persons. [1][2]
Where it stands today
The settlement of US$470 million stands. Criminal proceedings were restored in 1991 and a judgment was delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, on 7 June 2010. The Supreme Court dismissed a curative petition on 14 March 2023. Anderson's extradition was allowed by the Delhi Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 23 March 2011, but he was never extradited and never appeared before an Indian court.
What was done
The Government of India, under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, agreed to a settlement of US$470 million with Union Carbide Corporation, which the Supreme Court recorded on 14 February 1989. Warren Anderson was arrested on 7 December 1984 and released on bail the same day by Bhopal Police on a personal bond of ₹25,000; he then left India and never returned. The Supreme Court quashed all criminal proceedings on 14–15 February 1989, then restored them on 3 October 1991.
What it meant for the country
The disaster left 15,000 people dead and over five lakh injured or permanently disabled, and the man identified as the primary accused left India after being released on bail and never returned to face trial.
The Delhi court recorded that the disaster left 15,000 people dead and over five lakh injured or permanently disabled. [2]
Warren Anderson, shown as Accused No. 1 and the primary accused, left India after executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 and never returned to face trial; summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants and a proclamation in the Washington Post all failed to secure his presence. [2]
Union Carbide Corporation agreed to pay US$470 million to the Union of India in settlement of all claims, rights, and liabilities relating to and arising out of the disaster. [7][8]
The Supreme Court quashed all criminal proceedings on 14–15 February 1989, then restored them on 3 October 1991, meaning the accused faced trial only after a gap of over two years. [1]
Step by step
1984-12-02 Between 0030 and 0045 hours on the night of 2–3 December 1984, methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas escaped from tank No. E610 at the Bhopal factory of Union Carbide India Limited. [1]
1984-12-03 FIR No. 1104 of 1984 was registered at Police Station Hanumanganj, Bhopal, by the Station House Officer suo motu. [1]
1984-12-06 The case was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). [1]
1984-12-07 Warren Anderson (Accused No. 1, Chairman of Union Carbide Corporation) was arrested along with accused Nos. 2 and 3. He was released on bail the same day on execution of a personal bond of ₹25,000 to the satisfaction of Bhopal Police. After executing the bond, he left India and never returned. [1][2]
1987-12-01 The CBI presented the chargesheet in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, citing 12 accused persons, with Anderson shown as Accused No. 1. [1][2]
1989-02-14 The Supreme Court recorded an overall settlement of the claims in the suit for US$470 million between the Union of India and Union Carbide Corporation. [8]
1989-02-15 By orders dated 14 February 1989 and 15 February 1989, the Supreme Court quashed all criminal proceedings relating to and arising out of the Bhopal Gas Disaster. [1]
1991-10-03 The Supreme Court reviewed its earlier order and restored the criminal proceedings. [1]
1992-01-01 A proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Anderson was published in the Washington Post, having circulation in Washington D.C., USA. [2]
2004-07-02 The US Department of State communicated to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, that insufficient material had been sent for Anderson's extradition. [2]
2010-06-07 The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, passed a detailed judgment in the matter, which the Delhi court later described as conclusive material implicating Anderson through the deposition of various witnesses. [2]
2011-03-23 The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, allowed the CBI's application for extradition of Warren Anderson, holding there was no bar in law in seeking his extradition from the US authorities. [2]
2023-03-14 The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Union of India vs Union Carbide Corporation, recording that UCC agreed to pay US$470 million to the Union of India in settlement of all claims, rights, and liabilities relating to and arising out of the Bhopal Gas disaster. [7]
Rajiv Gandhi government; Madhya Pradesh government (Arjun Singh)
1984
Harm to the nation
Official White Paper on the Punjab Agitation, July 1984
In the early 1980s, the Shiromani Akali Dal, a Sikh political party, led an agitation in Punjab over a set of demands. In 1984, the Indian government sent the army into the Golden Temple complex. On 10 July 1984 the Government of India published a White Paper, an official report, giving its account of the demands, the violence and the army operation. The source pages do not include any later parliamentary statement, inquiry report or court ruling on the army action.
Closed without a verdict
Operation Blue Star and the Punjab agitation
1984
Harm to the nation
Official White Paper on the Punjab Agitation, July 1984
In the early 1980s, the Shiromani Akali Dal, a Sikh political party, led an agitation in Punjab over a set of demands. In 1984, the Indian government sent the army into the Golden Temple complex. On 10 July 1984 the Government of India published a White Paper, an official report, giving its account of the demands, the violence and the army operation. The source pages do not include any later parliamentary statement, inquiry report or court ruling on the army action.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
In the early 1980s, the Shiromani Akali Dal, a Sikh political party, led an agitation in Punjab over a set of demands. In 1984, the Indian government sent the army into the Golden Temple complex. On 10 July 1984 the Government of India published a White Paper, an official report, giving its account of the demands, the violence and the army operation. The source pages do not include any later parliamentary statement, inquiry report or court ruling on the army action.
Who did it
Operation Blue Star and the Punjab agitation
The evidence
The White Paper on the Punjab Agitation was published by the Government of India on 10 July 1984 and sets out the Government's responses to the Akali Dal's demands, acts of terrorism and violence, activities of Sikh separatists abroad, and the army operations to remove persons and weapons from places of worship. [7]
The Government received 45 demands from the Akali Dal in September 1981 and a revised list of 15 demands in October 1981. [7]
The White Paper says that in the week before the Army was called in aid of civil authority, the Government made one more effort to reach a settlement with the Akali Dal leadership but found their position more rigid than before. [7]
The Supreme Court's decisions in Sengara Singh (1983) and Baldev Raj (1984) record that after a Punjab police agitation in 1979 the State dismissed about 1,100 members of the police force, later reinstated about 1,000 and withdrew criminal cases against some; those cases concern the 1979 police agitation, not the army action in the Golden Temple. [1][2]
Where it stands today
The White Paper of 10 July 1984 stands as the Government of India's published account. No later parliamentary statement, commission of inquiry or court record about the army action in the Golden Temple is included in the source pages.
What was done
The Government of India received the Akali Dal's 45 demands in September 1981 and a revised list of 15 demands in October 1981. In the week before the army was called, the Government made one more attempt to reach a settlement, found the Akali Dal leadership's position more rigid, and on 10 July 1984 published the White Paper on the Punjab Agitation setting out its account of the demands, violence, activities abroad and the army operation.
What it meant for the country
The sources record harmful consequences: independent reporting was stopped and, as reported by Sikh Museum, the operation was followed by arbitrary arrests, torture and killing and a shift among Sikhs toward demanding a separate state.
As reported by Sikh Museum, no foreign or independent journalists were allowed into Punjab for over a month after Operation Blue Star, and those already in the State were expelled. [6]
As reported by Sikh Museum, after Operation Blue Star the vast majority of Sikhs, irrespective of their past political affiliations, united in calling for the creation of Khalistan, while only a small minority supported the Indian government. [6]
As reported by Sikh Museum, in the months following Operation Blue Star the Indian army and police began a new phase described as arbitrary arrests, torture and killing, a sign of what it calls a decade-long darkness in Punjab. [6]
Step by step
1981-09 The Government of India received a list of 45 demands from the Shiromani Akali Dal. [7]
1981-10 The Government of India received a revised list of 15 demands from the Akali Dal. [7]
1984-06-15 As reported by Sikh Museum, an early official Government of India account of events was released on this date, one month before the White Paper; one week later the Government retracted the initial report and said drugs had been recovered from the India-Pakistan border, not from the Golden Temple complex. [6]
1984-07-10 The Government of India released the White Paper on the Punjab Agitation in New Delhi. [7]
In June 1984, the Indian Army entered the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar to remove armed militants who had taken shelter there. The Supreme Court later recorded that during this operation, called Operation Blue Star, some militants were killed and part of the Golden Temple complex, Harminder Saheb, was damaged. The operation concluded in 1984 with no legal finding against the government recorded in the sources, and in 2002 a member of Parliament sought an apology from the House to the Sikh people for the military action.
Closed without a verdict
Indira Gandhi government
1984
Harm to the nation
Operation Blue Star, June 1984
In June 1984, the Indian Army entered the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar to remove armed militants who had taken shelter there. The Supreme Court later recorded that during this operation, called Operation Blue Star, some militants were killed and part of the Golden Temple complex, Harminder Saheb, was damaged. The operation concluded in 1984 with no legal finding against the government recorded in the sources, and in 2002 a member of Parliament sought an apology from the House to the Sikh people for the military action.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
In June 1984, the Indian Army entered the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar to remove armed militants who had taken shelter there. The Supreme Court later recorded that during this operation, called Operation Blue Star, some militants were killed and part of the Golden Temple complex, Harminder Saheb, was damaged. The operation concluded in 1984 with no legal finding against the government recorded in the sources, and in 2002 a member of Parliament sought an apology from the House to the Sikh people for the military action.
Who did it
Indira Gandhi government
The evidence
The Supreme Court recorded in 1992 that Operation Blue Star was carried out to flush out militants who had taken refuge in the Golden Temple at Amritsar. [6]
The Supreme Court recorded that during Operation Blue Star, some militants were killed and a part of the Golden Temple known as Harminder Saheb was damaged. [6]
The Supreme Court recorded that Indira Gandhi and General Vaidya incurred the wrath of Punjab militants for what they called the desecration of the Golden Temple. [6]
In a 2002 Lok Sabha debate, a member stated that the Golden Temple was attacked with military force in 1984 and that artefacts were stolen by the Indian Army; he sought a parliamentary apology to the Sikh people. [1]
The Nanavati Commission was appointed by the Vajpayee government, as mentioned in the 2002 Lok Sabha debate, to inquire into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots; the sources do not record any commission findings on Operation Blue Star itself. [1]
Where it stands today
No proceedings against the Government of India over Operation Blue Star itself are recorded in the sources. The 2002 Lok Sabha debate records a demand for an apology, but the source does not show any formal resolution or apology being passed.
What was done
The Indira Gandhi government ordered the Army into the Golden Temple complex in June 1984. The Supreme Court, in a 1992 judgment, recorded that the task was to flush out militants who had taken refuge there, that some militants were killed, and that part of the Golden Temple known as Harminder Saheb was damaged. In 2002, a Lok Sabha member moved for Parliament to apologise to the Sikh people for the operation, stating that the Golden Temple was attacked with military force and that artefacts were stolen by the Indian Army.
What it meant for the country
The sources record damage to the Harminder Saheb within the Golden Temple complex and subsequent violence, including the assassination of General Vaidya, who had led the operation.
Part of the Golden Temple known as Harminder Saheb was damaged during the operation, as recorded by the Supreme Court. [6]
Some militants were killed during the operation, as recorded by the Supreme Court. [6]
General Vaidya, who led the operation, was later assassinated by Punjab militants seeking revenge for what they called the desecration of the Golden Temple, as recorded by the Supreme Court. [6]
In 2002, a Lok Sabha member stated on the floor of the House that artefacts were stolen by the Indian Army during the operation; this was a member's statement, not a formal finding. [1]
Step by step
1984 Operation Blue Star was carried out at the Golden Temple in Amritsar. The Supreme Court later recorded in a 1992 judgment that the operation was to flush out militants who had taken refuge there, that some militants were killed, and that part of the Golden Temple known as Harminder Saheb was damaged. [6][1]
1992-07-15 The Supreme Court, in State of Maharashtra vs Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and Others, described Operation Blue Star: the task was to flush out militants from the Golden Temple; some militants were killed and a part of the Golden Temple known as Harminder Saheb was damaged. The Court also recorded that Indira Gandhi and General Vaidya incurred the wrath of Punjab militants for what they called the desecration of the Golden Temple. [6]
2002-05-14 In the Lok Sabha, a member sought an apology from Parliament to the Sikh people on the issue of Operation Blue Star. The member stated that the Golden Temple was attacked with military force and that artefacts were stolen by the Indian Army. The Speaker allowed the member to complete his remarks, subject to removing anything unparliamentary from the record. No formal apology or resolution is recorded in the source. [1]
Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984
In the 1980s, when Punjab was facing terrorism, Parliament made a law to set up special courts for quick trials of certain offences in areas declared terrorist-affected. The law let the central government declare such areas and establish Special Courts, with judges appointed with the agreement of the High Court Chief Justice. It gave these courts modified procedures, including trying some cases without a committal stage and summarily. The sources record the law's enactment and its replacement of an earlier ordinance, but not how it was used or any Supreme Court decision on its validity.
A law or decision by the government
Special courts for terrorist cases
1984
Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984
In the 1980s, when Punjab was facing terrorism, Parliament made a law to set up special courts for quick trials of certain offences in areas declared terrorist-affected. The law let the central government declare such areas and establish Special Courts, with judges appointed with the agreement of the High Court Chief Justice. It gave these courts modified procedures, including trying some cases without a committal stage and summarily. The sources record the law's enactment and its replacement of an earlier ordinance, but not how it was used or any Supreme Court decision on its validity.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In the 1980s, when Punjab was facing terrorism, Parliament made a law to set up special courts for quick trials of certain offences in areas declared terrorist-affected. The law let the central government declare such areas and establish Special Courts, with judges appointed with the agreement of the High Court Chief Justice. It gave these courts modified procedures, including trying some cases without a committal stage and summarily. The sources record the law's enactment and its replacement of an earlier ordinance, but not how it was used or any Supreme Court decision on its validity.
Who did it
Special courts for terrorist cases
The evidence
The Act is called the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, extends to the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, and is deemed to have come into force on 14 July 1984. [1]
The Act's stated purpose was to provide for the speedy trial of certain offences in terrorist affected areas and for matters connected therewith; it was published as Act 61 of 1984 on 31 August 1984. [2]
The Act defined 'terrorist affected area' as an area declared under section 3, and 'scheduled offence' as an offence specified in the Schedule committed in a terrorist affected area. [2]
The Act defined 'terrorist' as a person who indulges in wanton killing, violence, disruption of essential services, or damaging property with aims such as putting the public in fear or endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India. [2]
The Central Government could establish a Special Court by notification for a judicial zone, and a Special Court was to be presided over by a judge appointed by the Central Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court. [2]
Where it stands today
The sources do not record any pending case, implementation action, or Supreme Court ruling on the Act's constitutionality. The only proceeding shown is the enactment and the repeal of the 1984 Ordinance.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, to provide for speedy trial of certain offences in terrorist-affected areas. The Act empowered the Central Government to declare terrorist-affected areas and establish Special Courts, with judges appointed with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, and it repealed the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984.
What it meant for the country
The Act changed criminal procedure for scheduled offences in terrorist-affected areas, but the sources do not record any resulting cases, convictions, or court rulings, so its practical consequences are unclear.
The Act replaced ordinary criminal procedure for scheduled offences in terrorist-affected areas: a Special Court could take cognizance without the accused being committed for trial, try offences punishable with up to three years' imprisonment summarily, and pass a sentence of up to two years in a summary trial. [1]
The Act gave Special Courts the powers of a Court of Session and allowed them to try connected non-scheduled offences and convict for any offence found during the trial. [1]
The Act allowed the Supreme Court to transfer cases between Special Courts and the Central Government to abolish a Special Court once its area ceased to be terrorist-affected and no cases were pending. [1][2]
Step by step
1984-07-14 The Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 is deemed to have come into force. [1]
1984-08-31 The Act is published as Act 61 of 1984, described as an Act to provide for the speedy trial of certain offences in terrorist affected areas and for matters connected therewith. [2]
1984-08-31 The Act repeals the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 (9 of 1984), and anything done under the Ordinance is deemed to have been done under the Act. [1][2]
After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was killed by her Sikh bodyguards on 31 October 1984, mobs attacked Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere. Commissions, committees and a special investigation team examined the violence and the role of Congress leaders. In one case, a trial court acquitted Sajjan Kumar, but the Delhi High Court reversed that on 17 December 2018 and convicted him, while affirming the convictions of five other accused.
Found guilty by a court
Congress leaders named in the record (Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler, H.K.L. Bhagat)
1984
Harm to the nation
The 1984 anti-Sikh violence and its cases
After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was killed by her Sikh bodyguards on 31 October 1984, mobs attacked Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere. Commissions, committees and a special investigation team examined the violence and the role of Congress leaders. In one case, a trial court acquitted Sajjan Kumar, but the Delhi High Court reversed that on 17 December 2018 and convicted him, while affirming the convictions of five other accused.
Found guilty by a court
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court held a trial and found the person guilty.
What happened
After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was killed by her Sikh bodyguards on 31 October 1984, mobs attacked Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere. Commissions, committees and a special investigation team examined the violence and the role of Congress leaders. In one case, a trial court acquitted Sajjan Kumar, but the Delhi High Court reversed that on 17 December 2018 and convicted him, while affirming the convictions of five other accused.
Who did it
Congress leaders named in the record (Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler, H.K.L. Bhagat)
The evidence
The 1984 anti-Sikh violence followed the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards on the morning of 31 October 1984. [6]
The Delhi High Court held that the mass killings of Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere in November 1984 were crimes against humanity. [6]
On 30 April 2013, the trial court convicted five accused and acquitted Sajjan Kumar; on 17 December 2018, the Delhi High Court reversed Sajjan Kumar's acquittal and convicted him. [6]
The Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry report was laid in the Lok Sabha on 8 August 2005, with a memorandum of action taken. [1]
According to a December 2009 Lok Sabha debate, the Nanavati Commission recommended registration of cases against Sajjan Kumar and others. [2]
Where it stands today
The principal outcome in the sourced record is the Delhi High Court conviction of Sajjan Kumar on 17 December 2018. The source extract does not state whether any appeal against that conviction is pending. Separate proceedings against Sajjan Kumar continued, with a Delhi District Court judgment dated 22 January 2026. The sourced record does not state the current status of the Jagdish Tytler trial or any action against H.K.L. Bhagat.
What was done
The central government set up the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry in 1985 to investigate the Delhi violence. In 2005 the Justice Nanavati Commission report was laid in Parliament and, according to the parliamentary record, recommended registration of cases against Sajjan Kumar and others. On 12 February 2015 the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Special Investigation Team to re-investigate closed 1984 riots cases in Delhi. In one case, after the trial court acquitted Sajjan Kumar, the Delhi High Court on 17 December 2018 reversed that acquittal and convicted him while affirming the convictions of five other accused.
What it meant for the country
The Delhi High Court recorded that the mass killings of Sikhs in November 1984 were crimes against humanity and convicted Sajjan Kumar, a former Member of Parliament, while affirming the convictions of five other accused in one case.
The Delhi High Court found that the mass killings of Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere in November 1984 were crimes against humanity, and it recorded the murders of five named Sikh men in the Raj Nagar area. [6]
Sajjan Kumar, a Congress leader and Member of Parliament at the time of the violence, was ordered to surrender by 31 December 2018 after the Delhi High Court reversed his trial-court acquittal. [6]
In a Lok Sabha debate on 2 December 2009, a member stated that thousands of Sikh women were widowed and thousands of children orphaned, naming one woman in Shakurpur who lost 21 members of her family. [2]
The Nanavati Commission report was laid in Parliament on 8 August 2005, but a 2009 Lok Sabha debate recorded that four CBI-registered cases against Sajjan Kumar had not resulted in a single charge sheet after four years. [1][2]
Step by step
1985 The Government of India established the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations of violence in Delhi following the death of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. [4]
2005-08-08 The Report of the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry and the Memorandum of Action Taken were laid on the table of the Lok Sabha. [1]
2005-08-10 The Lok Sabha took up an adjournment motion on the failure of the government to take action against persons indicted by the Nanavati Commission; the motion was negatived. [3]
2009-12-02 In a Lok Sabha debate, a member stated that the Nanavati Commission had recommended registration of cases against Sajjan Kumar and others; four cases were registered by the CBI in 2005 but no charge sheet had been filed against him after four years. [2]
2013-04-30 The trial court convicted five accused and acquitted Sajjan Kumar in the case arising from FIR No. RC-SI-1/2005/S0024 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantonment. [6]
2015-02-12 The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, constituted a Special Investigation Team to re-investigate closed 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases in Delhi. [4][7]
2018-12-17 The Delhi High Court partly allowed the CBI's appeal, reversed the acquittal of Sajjan Kumar, convicted him, and affirmed the convictions and sentences of the other five accused; he was directed to surrender by 31 December 2018. [6]
2022-07 Sajjan Kumar was charge sheeted in July 2022 under two FIRs related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, according to the Delhi District Court judgment dated 22 January 2026. [4]
2025-02-12 A Delhi District Court judgment of 22 January 2026 refers to an earlier judgment dated 12 February 2025 in another 1984 riots-related case against Sajjan Kumar, identified as case No. 03/21. [4]
2026-01-22 The Delhi District Court pronounced judgment in State v Sajjan Kumar (Ex. MP), SC No. B-3/1, arising from two FIRs investigated by the SIT; the extracted record sets out the charge sheet and evidence but does not state the operative outcome. [4]
Congress leaders named in the record (Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler, H.K.L. Bhagat)
1985
Assam Accord and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985
In the 1980s, Assam saw a long agitation over people who had come from Bangladesh and were said to be foreigners. On 15 August 1985, the Rajiv Gandhi government, the All Assam Students' Union and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad signed a settlement called the Assam Accord. Parliament then added Section 6A to the Citizenship Act, 1955 to give effect to the accord. The accord and the law stand as enacted; a Supreme Court challenge was heard in 2014, but the provided judgment does not record its final order.
A law or decision by the government
Assam accord, Assamese movement, migrants and citizenship rights
1985
Assam Accord and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985
In the 1980s, Assam saw a long agitation over people who had come from Bangladesh and were said to be foreigners. On 15 August 1985, the Rajiv Gandhi government, the All Assam Students' Union and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad signed a settlement called the Assam Accord. Parliament then added Section 6A to the Citizenship Act, 1955 to give effect to the accord. The accord and the law stand as enacted; a Supreme Court challenge was heard in 2014, but the provided judgment does not record its final order.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In the 1980s, Assam saw a long agitation over people who had come from Bangladesh and were said to be foreigners. On 15 August 1985, the Rajiv Gandhi government, the All Assam Students' Union and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad signed a settlement called the Assam Accord. Parliament then added Section 6A to the Citizenship Act, 1955 to give effect to the accord. The accord and the law stand as enacted; a Supreme Court challenge was heard in 2014, but the provided judgment does not record its final order.
Who did it
Assam accord, Assamese movement, migrants and citizenship rights
The evidence
The Assam Accord was signed on 15 August 1985 in New Delhi between the All Assam Students' Union, the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad, the Central Government and the State Government, in the presence of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. [5]
Under the accord, the All Assam Students' Union and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad called off the agitation and assured full cooperation. [5]
Section 6A was inserted in the Citizenship Act, 1955 in pursuance of the Assam Accord. [5]
Section 6A defines 'Assam' as the territories included in the State of Assam immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, and 'specified territory' as the territories included in Bangladesh immediately before that commencement. [5]
Section 6A(6)(a) provides that a person referred to in sub-section (2) may submit a declaration within sixty days that he does not wish to be a citizen of India, and such person shall not be deemed to have become a citizen of India. [5][6]
Where it stands today
The 1985 accord and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 stand as enacted. A Supreme Court challenge was heard in 2014 in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors, but the provided text does not state the outcome of that challenge.
What was done
The Rajiv Gandhi government and the Assam agitation leaders signed the Assam Accord on 15 August 1985; the accord said the agitation would be called off. Parliament inserted Section 6A in the Citizenship Act, 1955 in 1985 to give effect to the accord.
What it meant for the country
The documents record that the accord ended the Assam agitation and created a special citizenship framework, but they do not state how many people were affected or what happened to them.
The accord ended the Assam agitation, with AASU and AAGSP calling it off and pledging full cooperation towards the development of the country. [5]
Section 6A created special citizenship provisions for persons covered by the Assam Accord, including a right for certain persons to declare within sixty days that they did not wish to be citizens of India. [5][6]
Step by step
1985-08-15 The Memorandum of Settlement known as the Assam Accord was signed in New Delhi between the All Assam Students' Union (AASU), the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP), the Central Government and the State Government, in the presence of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The accord recorded that AASU and AAGSP called off the agitation and assured full cooperation. In pursuance of this accord, Section 6A was inserted in the Citizenship Act, 1955 in 1985. [5]
2014-12-17 The Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors, a writ petition concerning the Assam Accord and Section 6A. The judgment reproduces the 1985 Memorandum of Settlement and the text of Section 6A, but the provided excerpt does not record the final order. [5]
Assam accord, Assamese movement, migrants and citizenship rights
1985
Mixed
Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985: anti-defection law
In the decades after independence, many Indian legislators switched parties, often to win ministerial posts. To stop this, Parliament passed the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, which added a Tenth Schedule to the Constitution setting out when a Member of Parliament or state legislator loses their seat for leaving their party or voting against its direction. The Supreme Court upheld the law in 1992 but cancelled one clause, Paragraph 7, that had tried to keep courts out of disqualification matters. The law remains in force today.
A law or decision by the government
Members of Parliament and state legislators
1985
Mixed
Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985: anti-defection law
In the decades after independence, many Indian legislators switched parties, often to win ministerial posts. To stop this, Parliament passed the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, which added a Tenth Schedule to the Constitution setting out when a Member of Parliament or state legislator loses their seat for leaving their party or voting against its direction. The Supreme Court upheld the law in 1992 but cancelled one clause, Paragraph 7, that had tried to keep courts out of disqualification matters. The law remains in force today.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In the decades after independence, many Indian legislators switched parties, often to win ministerial posts. To stop this, Parliament passed the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, which added a Tenth Schedule to the Constitution setting out when a Member of Parliament or state legislator loses their seat for leaving their party or voting against its direction. The Supreme Court upheld the law in 1992 but cancelled one clause, Paragraph 7, that had tried to keep courts out of disqualification matters. The law remains in force today.
Who did it
Members of Parliament and state legislators
The evidence
The Tenth Schedule is titled 'Provisions as to disqualification on ground of defection' and relates to Articles 102(2) and 191(2) of the Constitution. [3]
Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule specifies the grounds of disqualification, including voting or abstaining from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the political party without prior permission, where such voting or abstention has not been condoned within fifteen days. [9]
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Tenth Schedule exclude disqualification under Paragraph 2 in cases of split in the original political party or merger with another political party. [9]
Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule stated that no court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of a Member of a House under the Schedule. [9]
The Supreme Court on 12.11.1991 upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment and the Tenth Schedule, except Paragraph 7, which was declared invalid for want of ratification as required by the proviso to Article 368(2). [9]
Where it stands today
The Tenth Schedule stands as enacted, with Paragraph 7 struck down by the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan (order of 12.11.1991, judgment of 18.02.1992). No pending proceeding is mentioned in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, adding the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution with grounds for disqualifying legislators on defection. The Supreme Court, in Kihoto Hollohan, upheld the amendment and the Tenth Schedule except Paragraph 7, which it declared invalid for want of ratification by state legislatures.
What it meant for the country
The anti-defection law was enacted and upheld, but the Supreme Court itself recorded that it has not had the desired effect, and that 116 of 210 defecting legislators in seven states had gained ministerial posts through defections.
The Supreme Court recorded that out of 210 defecting legislators of Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, 116 were included in the Council of Ministers which they helped to bring into being by defections. [9]
In 1998, the Supreme Court observed that the anti-defection law 'has not had the desired effect'. [6]
Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule, which said no court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of a member, was declared invalid by the Supreme Court, so judicial review of disqualification matters remained available. [9]
Step by step
1985 Parliament enacted the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, which added the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, titled 'Provisions as to disqualification on ground of defection', relating to Articles 102(2) and 191(2). [3][9]
1991-11-12 The Supreme Court made an order in Kihoto Hollohan upholding the constitutional validity of the amendment and the Tenth Schedule, except Paragraph 7, which was declared invalid for want of ratification as required by the proviso to Article 368(2) of the Constitution. [9]
1992-02-18 The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others, recording the 12.11.1991 order upholding the Tenth Schedule except Paragraph 7. [9]
1998-10-09 The Supreme Court in Mayawati vs Markandeya Chand & Ors observed that the anti-defection law 'has not had the desired effect'. [6]
2008-01-27 The Secretary General laid before the Lok Sabha a copy of the decision of the Speaker, Lok Sabha, dated 27 January 2008, under the Tenth Schedule and the Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1985. [10]
2008-12-10 The Secretary General laid before the Lok Sabha a copy of the decision dated 10 December 2008 of the Speaker, Lok Sabha, on the petition by Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab, MP, against Shri Harihar Swain under the Tenth Schedule. [12]
2009-01-09 The Secretary General laid before the Lok Sabha a copy of the decision dated 9 January 2009 of the Speaker, Lok Sabha, on the petition by Shri Rajeev Ranjan Singh 'Lalan' against Dr. Koya under the Tenth Schedule. [11]
In the mid-1980s Punjab was unsettled after the army action at the Golden Temple, and disputes remained over river water and demands of the Akali Dal. On 24 July 1985, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Akali Dal president Harchand Singh Longowal signed a settlement, later called the Punjab Accord, to resolve those issues. The recorded water clauses said farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan would keep getting at least the Ravi-Beas water they were using as on 1 July 1985, remaining water claims would go to a tribunal, and the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal was to be completed by 15 August 1986. Longowal was shot dead on 20 August 1985, and the water part of the accord remained in litigation for decades; in 2004 Punjab passed a law to end its water-sharing obligations, and the dispute went to the Supreme Court.
A law or decision by the government
Punjab, Sikh political prisoners, Anandpur Sahib Resolution
1985
Harm to the nation
Punjab Accord (Rajiv-Longowal Accord), July 1985
In the mid-1980s Punjab was unsettled after the army action at the Golden Temple, and disputes remained over river water and demands of the Akali Dal. On 24 July 1985, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Akali Dal president Harchand Singh Longowal signed a settlement, later called the Punjab Accord, to resolve those issues. The recorded water clauses said farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan would keep getting at least the Ravi-Beas water they were using as on 1 July 1985, remaining water claims would go to a tribunal, and the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal was to be completed by 15 August 1986. Longowal was shot dead on 20 August 1985, and the water part of the accord remained in litigation for decades; in 2004 Punjab passed a law to end its water-sharing obligations, and the dispute went to the Supreme Court.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In the mid-1980s Punjab was unsettled after the army action at the Golden Temple, and disputes remained over river water and demands of the Akali Dal. On 24 July 1985, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Akali Dal president Harchand Singh Longowal signed a settlement, later called the Punjab Accord, to resolve those issues. The recorded water clauses said farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan would keep getting at least the Ravi-Beas water they were using as on 1 July 1985, remaining water claims would go to a tribunal, and the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal was to be completed by 15 August 1986. Longowal was shot dead on 20 August 1985, and the water part of the accord remained in litigation for decades; in 2004 Punjab passed a law to end its water-sharing obligations, and the dispute went to the Supreme Court.
Who did it
Punjab, Sikh political prisoners, Anandpur Sahib Resolution
The evidence
The Punjab Settlement was signed on 24 July 1985 by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Shiromani Akali Dal president Sant Harchand Singh Longowal. [1][5]
Paragraph 9.1 of the Punjab Settlement said farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan will continue to get water not less than what they were using from the Ravi-Beas system as on 1 July 1985, and remaining water claims would be referred to a tribunal. [1][7]
The settlement required the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal to be completed by 15 August 1986. [7]
Sant Longowal was shot dead on 20 August 1985 at Sherpur Gurudwara. [5]
The Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 was enacted on 12 July 2004 to terminate Punjab's obligations under the 31 December 1981 agreement and other Ravi-Beas water agreements. [1]
Where it stands today
The Ravi-Beas and Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal dispute was before the Supreme Court of India: Haryana filed Suit No. 6 of 1996 seeking a declaration that the 24 March 1976 order, the 31 December 1981 agreement and the 24 July 1985 settlement are final and binding, and Punjab filed a challenge in 2003. The Supreme Court gave directions on 4 June 2004, and on 22 July 2004 the President made a reference under Article 143(1) about the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004. The Eradi Tribunal had reported on 30 January 1987, and Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 was in place; the documents do not record the final disposal of the 2004 reference.
What was done
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Shiromani Akali Dal president Harchand Singh Longowal signed the Punjab Settlement on 24 July 1985. Its recorded water clauses protected the existing use of Ravi-Beas water by farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan as on 1 July 1985, sent claims over remaining water to a tribunal, and required the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal to be completed by 15 August 1986. The Union government gave effect to those clauses by inserting Section 14 into the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and constituting the Eradi Tribunal.
What it meant for the country
The documents record that the accord did not end the Punjab conflict or the water dispute: its signatory was assassinated weeks later, the Sutlej-Yamuna canal remained incomplete into 2004, and Punjab passed a law to terminate its Ravi-Beas obligations.
The accord lost its signatory to assassination within weeks, removing the political figure associated with the settlement from the scene. [5]
The Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal remained unfinished for years, forcing the Supreme Court on 4 June 2004 to order the Union of India to take control of the canal works and Punjab to hand them over within two weeks. [1]
Punjab's 2004 law to end its obligations under the 31 December 1981 water arrangement led to a Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court on 22 July 2004, keeping the constitutional dispute alive. [1]
Step by step
1985-03-12 Sant Harchand Singh Longowal, president of the Shiromani Akali Dal, had been interned in prison after the army action at the Akal Takht and remained there until this date, according to the Supreme Court's later judgment in the case concerning his killing. [5]
1985-07-24 An accord called the Punjab Settlement was signed by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sant Harchand Singh Longowal; a pact was signed on its basis by the two leaders. [1][5]
1985-07-30 An attempt was made on Sant Longowal and his comrades when they visited the Golden Temple at Amritsar. [5]
1985-08-20 Sant Longowal was shot while attending a meeting at Sherpur Gurudwara and died of his injuries at 8.40 p.m. [5]
1986-04-02 The Union of India issued a notification referring issues of usage and allocation of Ravi-Beas waters to the Waters Tribunal, after Section 14 was added to the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 to give effect to paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 of the Punjab Settlement. [7]
1987-01-30 The Waters Tribunal submitted its report allocating the Ravi-Beas waters between Punjab and Haryana. [7]
1999-09-14 The Supreme Court, in the appeal of Gian Singh, recorded that Longowal was shot dead on 20 August 1985 and altered the appellant's sentence under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 to imprisonment for life. [5]
2003-01-13 The State of Punjab filed a suit in the Supreme Court seeking, among other things, a declaration that the Punjab Settlement (Rajiv-Longowal Accord) was not enforceable in the changed circumstances, and challenging Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. [1]
2004-06-04 The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to mobilise a central agency to take control of the canal works within one month and directed the State of Punjab to hand over the works to the central agency within two weeks. [1]
2004-07-12 The State of Punjab enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, terminating and discharging the Government of Punjab from its obligations under the agreement dated 31 December 1981 and all other agreements relating to the waters of the Ravi and Beas. [1]
2004-07-22 The President of India made a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution in relation to the enactment of the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 by the State of Punjab. [1]
Punjab, Sikh political prisoners, Anandpur Sahib Resolution
1985
Harm to the nation
Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots
After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated on 31 October 1984, riots broke out across India in which Sikhs were killed. The government appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Ranganath Misra, a Supreme Court judge, to examine the causes of the riots. The Commission received evidence from victims and submitted a report confirming the killings and finding that the Delhi police showed passivity, callousness and indifference, and failed to act as a professional force. The Commission indicted police officers, but as stated in Parliament, those officers were given promotions rather than facing action.
An official inquiry found fault
Victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots
1985
Harm to the nation
Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots
After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated on 31 October 1984, riots broke out across India in which Sikhs were killed. The government appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Ranganath Misra, a Supreme Court judge, to examine the causes of the riots. The Commission received evidence from victims and submitted a report confirming the killings and finding that the Delhi police showed passivity, callousness and indifference, and failed to act as a professional force. The Commission indicted police officers, but as stated in Parliament, those officers were given promotions rather than facing action.
An official inquiry found fault
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A government auditor or an inquiry commission examined this and reported what went wrong. This is a report, not a court verdict.
What happened
After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated on 31 October 1984, riots broke out across India in which Sikhs were killed. The government appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Ranganath Misra, a Supreme Court judge, to examine the causes of the riots. The Commission received evidence from victims and submitted a report confirming the killings and finding that the Delhi police showed passivity, callousness and indifference, and failed to act as a professional force. The Commission indicted police officers, but as stated in Parliament, those officers were given promotions rather than facing action.
Who did it
Victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots
The evidence
A Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Ranganath Misra was appointed to examine the causes of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. [14][16][17]
The Commission received an affidavit from Harvinder Singh dated 8 September 1985 describing the riots in Delhi. [13]
The Commission submitted a report confirming the killings of Sikhs. [17]
The Commission's report found passivity, callousness and indifference on the part of the Delhi police and observed that the police failed to act as a professional force. [17]
The Commission indicted police officers, who were given promotions, as stated in a Lok Sabha debate. [18]
Where it stands today
The Commission of Inquiry concluded its work with a report containing findings on police responsibility. No action on the Commission's findings against police officers is documented in the sources. Cases arising from affidavits submitted to the Commission were later reopened by a Special Investigation Team constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 12 February 2015.
What was done
The government constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Ranganath Misra in 1985 to examine the causes of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The Commission received affidavits from victims, including one from Harvinder Singh dated 8 September 1985, and submitted a report confirming the killings of Sikhs. The report found passivity, callousness and indifference on the part of the Delhi police and observed that the police failed to act as a professional force. The Commission indicted police officers. No disciplinary or criminal action against those officers is documented in the sources; as stated in a Lok Sabha debate, the indicted officers were given promotions.
What it meant for the country
The Commission's own findings record that the Delhi police failed to protect Sikh citizens during the 1984 riots, and the officers it indicted were promoted rather than punished, as stated in Parliament.
Sikhs were killed in Delhi and other parts of the country between 31 October and November 1984, as confirmed by the Commission's report. [17]
The Commission found passivity, callousness and indifference on the part of the Delhi police, and that the police failed to act as a professional force during the riots. [17]
Police officers indicted by the Commission were given promotions, as stated in a Lok Sabha debate. [18]
Cases arising from affidavits submitted to the Commission were closed as untraced by Delhi Police and only reopened in 2015 by a Special Investigation Team constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs. [13]
Step by step
1984-10-31 Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Riots broke out across the country in which Sikhs were killed in Delhi and other parts of India between 31 October and November 1984. [14][16][17]
1985 The government appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Ranganath Misra, a Supreme Court judge, to examine the causes of the riots. [14][16][17]
1985-09-08 Harvinder Singh submitted an affidavit to the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission of Inquiry describing the riots in Delhi. The affidavit recommended registration of two fresh cases. [13]
Shah Bano: a court ordered support for a divorced Muslim woman, and Parliament passed a law to limit it
Shah Bano was a divorced Muslim woman who asked the courts to make her former husband pay for her upkeep. In April 1985 the Supreme Court said he must keep paying her ₹179.20 a month. In 1986 Rajiv Gandhi's government passed a law that limited the husband's duty to about three months after divorce, and shifted the duty to her relatives or to Muslim charity boards. In 2001 the Supreme Court kept that law but read it to mean the husband must make a fair provision for the woman's whole life.
A law or decision by the government
Rajiv Gandhi government (1986)
1985
Mixed
Shah Bano: a court ordered support for a divorced Muslim woman, and Parliament passed a law to limit it
Shah Bano was a divorced Muslim woman who asked the courts to make her former husband pay for her upkeep. In April 1985 the Supreme Court said he must keep paying her ₹179.20 a month. In 1986 Rajiv Gandhi's government passed a law that limited the husband's duty to about three months after divorce, and shifted the duty to her relatives or to Muslim charity boards. In 2001 the Supreme Court kept that law but read it to mean the husband must make a fair provision for the woman's whole life.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Shah Bano was a divorced Muslim woman who asked the courts to make her former husband pay for her upkeep. In April 1985 the Supreme Court said he must keep paying her ₹179.20 a month. In 1986 Rajiv Gandhi's government passed a law that limited the husband's duty to about three months after divorce, and shifted the duty to her relatives or to Muslim charity boards. In 2001 the Supreme Court kept that law but read it to mean the husband must make a fair provision for the woman's whole life.
Who did it
Rajiv Gandhi government (1986)
The evidence
Shah Bano was divorced on 6 November 1978 by an irrevocable talaq. [1]
The Supreme Court held that Section 125 CrPC applies to Muslims and that a divorced Muslim wife unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance beyond iddat. [1]
The Supreme Court upheld a direction to pay ₹179.20 per month to Shah Bano, as reported by a legal commentary. [4]
The 1986 Act was passed by the Rajiv Gandhi government, which held an absolute majority, and restricted alimony to 90 days after divorce, shifting responsibility to relatives or waqf boards. [3][6]
In 2001, the Supreme Court upheld the 1986 Act and ruled that Muslim husbands are liable beyond iddat under Section 3(1)(a). [7][8]
Where it stands today
The 1986 Act remains in force as interpreted in Danial Latifi. No appeal or pending proceeding is indicated in the sources. The Shah Bano maintenance case concluded with the 1985 judgment; the constitutional challenge to the 1986 Act concluded in 2001.
What was done
The Rajiv Gandhi government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which narrowed maintenance for divorced Muslim women to the iddat period and moved responsibility to relatives or waqf boards. The Supreme Court in 1985 had held the husband liable beyond iddat; in 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the 1986 Act but interpreted Section 3(1)(a) to require a fair and reasonable provision for the divorced wife.
What it meant for the country
The 1986 law initially narrowed divorced Muslim women's maintenance rights, but the Supreme Court's 2001 reading restored a right to fair provision, leaving the consequences mixed.
The 1986 Act restricted divorced Muslim women's alimony to 90 days after divorce and shifted responsibility to relatives or waqf boards, as reported by Wikipedia. [6]
In 2001, the Supreme Court upheld the Act but interpreted it to protect maintenance rights beyond the iddat period, so the restriction was softened. [7][8]
The dispute contributed to later changes: a 2017 Supreme Court ruling against instant triple talaq and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, as reported. [5]
Step by step
1978-11-06 Mohd. Ahmed Khan divorced Shah Bano by an irrevocable talaq, as recorded in the Supreme Court judgment. [1]
1985-04-23 The Supreme Court held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to Muslim women and that a divorced Muslim wife who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period. As reported by a legal commentary, the Court upheld a direction to pay ₹179.20 per month to Shah Bano. [1][4]
1986 Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. As reported, it restricted a Muslim divorcée's right to alimony to 90 days after divorce, the iddat period, and shifted responsibility for her maintenance to her relatives or waqf boards. [2][3][6]
2001 In Danial Latifi v Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act and ruled that Muslim husbands are liable to provide maintenance to their divorced wives beyond the iddat period under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. [7][8]
2017 The Supreme Court gave a ruling against instant triple talaq, later followed by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, as reported. [5]
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985
TADA was an anti-terrorism law that set up special courts and harsh punishments for acts it called 'terrorist' and 'disruptive'. Parliament passed it in 1985 for two years, then passed a new version in 1987 that ran for eight years. The Supreme Court upheld the 1987 law's validity in 1994, and the law expired in 1995, though trials and punishments continued under its saving clause.
A law or decision by the government
Persons accused under anti-terror law
1985
Harm to the nation
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985
TADA was an anti-terrorism law that set up special courts and harsh punishments for acts it called 'terrorist' and 'disruptive'. Parliament passed it in 1985 for two years, then passed a new version in 1987 that ran for eight years. The Supreme Court upheld the 1987 law's validity in 1994, and the law expired in 1995, though trials and punishments continued under its saving clause.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
TADA was an anti-terrorism law that set up special courts and harsh punishments for acts it called 'terrorist' and 'disruptive'. Parliament passed it in 1985 for two years, then passed a new version in 1987 that ran for eight years. The Supreme Court upheld the 1987 law's validity in 1994, and the law expired in 1995, though trials and punishments continued under its saving clause.
Who did it
Persons accused under anti-terror law
The evidence
TADA 1985 remained in force for two years starting from 23 May 1985 and expired on 22 May 1987. [9]
Section 3(2) of TADA 1985 prescribed death as the only sentence for the most serious offence. [9]
TADA 1987 came into force on 24 May 1987 and was to remain in force for eight years. [1][5]
Section 4 of TADA 1987 defined 'disruptive activity' to include any action by act or speech that questions or disrupts the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, or supports any claim for cession or secession of any part of India. [2][4]
Section 4(1) of TADA 1987 prescribed imprisonment of not less than five years, extendable to life, and a fine for disruptive activities. [2][4]
Where it stands today
TADA 1985 expired on 22 May 1987 and TADA 1987 expired after eight years from 24 May 1987. The Supreme Court upheld the 1987 Act in Kartar Singh (1994) and dismissed Abdul Aziz's challenge in 1995. No pending proceedings are shown in the sources.
What was done
Parliament passed TADA in 1985 for two years and replaced it with TADA 1987 for eight years. The Supreme Court upheld the 1987 Act's general validity in Kartar Singh (1994) and dismissed Abdul Aziz's challenge to Section 1(4) in 1995. In Gian Singh's case (1999), the Supreme Court altered a death sentence under TADA 1985 to life imprisonment because TADA 1987 provided that alternative.
What it meant for the country
The Act curtailed rights by making speech a 'disruptive activity' punishable with at least five years in prison and by making death the only sentence for some offences, and one accused spent over 14 years in jail before his death sentence was altered to life imprisonment.
TADA 1985 made death the only sentence for the most serious offence under Section 3(2); Gian Singh was sentenced to death under this provision. [9]
TADA 1987 defined 'disruptive activity' to include speech that questions the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India or supports secession, punishable with imprisonment of not less than five years up to life. [2][4]
Gian Singh had been in jail for a period exceeding 14 years when the Supreme Court altered his death sentence to life imprisonment in 1999. [9]
The Supreme Court upheld TADA 1987's general validity, rejecting claims that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. [10]
Step by step
1985-05-23 The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 came into force for a period of two years. [9]
1987-05-24 The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 came into force and was to remain in force for eight years. [1][5]
1994-03-11 The Supreme Court in Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab upheld TADA 1987 generally as valid, as later noted in Abdul Aziz. [10][11]
1995-07-21 The Supreme Court in Abdul Aziz vs State of West Bengal dismissed a challenge to the constitutional validity of TADA 1987, particularly Section 1(4), rejecting claims that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. [10]
1995-10-16 The Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt vs State of Maharashtra set bail conditions requiring him to appear before the Designated Court as and when directed and to comply with any other direction of that court. [12]
1999-09-14 The Supreme Court in State Through CBI, Delhi vs Gian Singh altered Gian Singh's death sentence under Section 3(2) of TADA 1985 to imprisonment for life, holding that the alternative sentence in TADA 1987 superseded the mandatory death sentence in the 1985 Act. [9]
A 1986 law was made to protect people who buy goods and services. It set up consumer protection councils at the central, state and district levels, and a three-tier system of consumer courts: district forums, state commissions and a national commission. Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a 2002 amendment added provisions on district councils, circuit benches and enforcement of orders. The Act stands enacted; its commencement date was left to the Central Government to fix by notification.
A law or decision by the government
Consumers and consumer courts
1986
Benefit to the nation
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
A 1986 law was made to protect people who buy goods and services. It set up consumer protection councils at the central, state and district levels, and a three-tier system of consumer courts: district forums, state commissions and a national commission. Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a 2002 amendment added provisions on district councils, circuit benches and enforcement of orders. The Act stands enacted; its commencement date was left to the Central Government to fix by notification.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
A 1986 law was made to protect people who buy goods and services. It set up consumer protection councils at the central, state and district levels, and a three-tier system of consumer courts: district forums, state commissions and a national commission. Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a 2002 amendment added provisions on district councils, circuit benches and enforcement of orders. The Act stands enacted; its commencement date was left to the Central Government to fix by notification.
Who did it
Consumers and consumer courts
The evidence
The Act extended to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. [1][2]
It was to come into force on a date or dates appointed by the Central Government by notification, and different dates could be appointed for different states and provisions. [1][2][9]
The Central Consumer Protection Council was to be chaired by the minister in charge of consumer affairs in the Central Government. [1]
State Consumer Protection Councils were to be chaired by the state minister in charge of consumer affairs, and District Consumer Protection Councils by the district Collector. [1][8]
The objects of the Central Council included six consumer rights: protection against hazardous goods and services, information about quality and price, access to competitive prices, being heard, redressal against unfair trade practices, and consumer education. [3]
Where it stands today
No proceedings are pending; the matter is a statute. The 2002 amendment was passed by Rajya Sabha.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which created consumer councils and a three-tier redressal system. The Central Government was given the power to notify the date the Act would come into force; state governments were to establish district forums and state commissions, and the central government was to establish the national commission.
What it meant for the country
The Act gave consumers statutory rights and created a three-tier system to hear their complaints, a gain for consumers.
Consumers gained six statutory rights, including protection against hazardous goods and services, information about quality and price, and redressal against unfair trade practices. [3]
A three-tier redressal system was created: District Forums, State Commissions and a National Commission, where consumers could file complaints. [1]
Complaints could be filed by individual consumers, recognised consumer associations, or the Central or State Government on behalf of consumers generally. [1]
Frivolous or vexatious complaints could be dismissed with costs up to ₹10,000, a safeguard against misuse of the new forums. [5]
Step by step
1986 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted. It provided for Central, State and District Consumer Protection Councils and for District Forums, State Commissions and a National Commission. [1][3][11]
2002 The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 was passed by Rajya Sabha. It added provisions for District Consumer Protection Councils, circuit benches, transfer of cases, and enforcement of orders. [7][12]
The Bofors matter was India's 1986 purchase of 410 Swedish 155 mm artillery guns from AB Bofors. Swedish Radio reported in April 1987 that Bofors paid commission into Swiss bank accounts, and Sweden's National Audit Bureau made findings; the Joint Parliamentary Committee reported on 22 April 1988. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a first information report on 22 January 1990. The Delhi High Court later quashed proceedings against public servants and certain other accused, as noted in a Lok Sabha question, and the government did not pursue an extradition appeal in Argentina; the Interpol red-corner notice against Ottavio Quattrocchi was withdrawn after the Attorney General of India approved the withdrawal because it was impinging heavily on the exchequer. The criminal prosecutions therefore stand cancelled by the High Court, and the provided documents show no conviction.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Rajiv Gandhi government; Ottavio Quattrocchi
1987
Harm to the nation
Bofors howitzer contract, 1986–87
The Bofors matter was India's 1986 purchase of 410 Swedish 155 mm artillery guns from AB Bofors. Swedish Radio reported in April 1987 that Bofors paid commission into Swiss bank accounts, and Sweden's National Audit Bureau made findings; the Joint Parliamentary Committee reported on 22 April 1988. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a first information report on 22 January 1990. The Delhi High Court later quashed proceedings against public servants and certain other accused, as noted in a Lok Sabha question, and the government did not pursue an extradition appeal in Argentina; the Interpol red-corner notice against Ottavio Quattrocchi was withdrawn after the Attorney General of India approved the withdrawal because it was impinging heavily on the exchequer. The criminal prosecutions therefore stand cancelled by the High Court, and the provided documents show no conviction.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
The Bofors matter was India's 1986 purchase of 410 Swedish 155 mm artillery guns from AB Bofors. Swedish Radio reported in April 1987 that Bofors paid commission into Swiss bank accounts, and Sweden's National Audit Bureau made findings; the Joint Parliamentary Committee reported on 22 April 1988. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a first information report on 22 January 1990. The Delhi High Court later quashed proceedings against public servants and certain other accused, as noted in a Lok Sabha question, and the government did not pursue an extradition appeal in Argentina; the Interpol red-corner notice against Ottavio Quattrocchi was withdrawn after the Attorney General of India approved the withdrawal because it was impinging heavily on the exchequer. The criminal prosecutions therefore stand cancelled by the High Court, and the provided documents show no conviction.
Who did it
Rajiv Gandhi government; Ottavio Quattrocchi
The evidence
The order for 410 Bofors 155 mm Field Howitzer 77-B guns was placed on 24 March 1986. [2] [2]
An advance of Rs 296.15 crore, 20% of the contract value, was paid to Bofors on 2 May 1986. [2] [2]
Swedish Radio's Dagens Eko programme broadcast a story on 16 April 1987, more than a year after the contract and after deliveries had started. [2] [2]
The Swedish National Audit Bureau found payments of commission by Bofors to companies' accounts in Switzerland, which payments were remitted by Bofors to banks in Switzerland between May 1986 and March 1987. [9] [9]
Before examination by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, a representative of Bofors admitted to officers of the Government of India that a total sum of SEK 319.40 million was paid to three companies registered outside India. [9] [9]
Where it stands today
The Delhi High Court quashed proceedings against public servants and certain other accused by judgments of February 2004 and May 2005, as noted in a Lok Sabha question. The extradition proceedings against Ottavio Quattrocchi in Argentina were not pursued through the Argentine Supreme Court, and the Interpol Red Corner Notice against him was withdrawn. The provided documents do not identify a current pending court proceeding.
What was done
The Government of India ordered 410 155 mm guns from AB Bofors on 24 March 1986 and paid Rs 296.15 crore as an advance on 2 May 1986. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case on 22 January 1990. The government did not pursue an extradition appeal in the Supreme Court of Argentina against Ottavio Quattrocchi, and later withdrew the Interpol Red Corner Notice against him after the Attorney General of India approved the withdrawal because the notice was impinging very heavily upon the exchequer.
What it meant for the country
The Bofors prosecution largely ended without convictions: the Delhi High Court quashed proceedings against public servants and certain other accused, the government did not pursue an extradition appeal in Argentina, and the Interpol Red Corner Notice was withdrawn because it was impinging heavily
Ottavio Quattrocchi, described in a Lok Sabha question as the Bofors prime accused, was not extradited after the government did not pursue an appeal in Argentina's Supreme Court; a member of Parliament said the country had been agitating over the matter for 22 years. [10] [10]
The Interpol Red Corner Notice against Quattrocchi was withdrawn after the approval of the Attorney General of India because it was impinging very heavily upon the exchequer. [8] [8]
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against public servants and certain other accused by judgments of February 2004 and May 2005, as reported in a Lok Sabha question, so those prosecutions ended without convictions. [10] [10]
Rs 296.15 crore, equal to 20% of the contract value, had already been paid to Bofors as an advance by 2 May 1986, before the criminal case ended without convictions. [2] [2]
Step by step
1986-03-24 The Government of India placed an order with AB Bofors for 410 numbers (400 plus 10 free) of 155 mm Field Howitzer 77-B gun systems or spare guns under contract No. [2] [2]
1986-05-02 An advance of Rs 296.15 crore, equivalent to 20% of the contract value, was paid to Bofors. [2] [2]
1987-04-16 Swedish Radio's Dagens Eko programme broadcast a story on the Bofors contract, more than a year after the contract and after deliveries had started. [2] [2]
1988-04-22 The Joint Parliamentary Committee submitted its report on the matter. [2] [2]
1990-01-22 The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, registered a first information report. Its preface recorded that the case was registered on the basis of reliable information received from sources, media reports dated 1 June 1987 of the Swedish National Audit Bureau, certain facts from the Joint Parliamentary Committee report dated 22 April 1988 and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of April 1988. [2] [9] [2][9]
1990-02-07 A Letter Rogatory was issued by the Court of Special Judge, Delhi, to the competent Swiss authorities for further investigation. The Swiss authorities made available their part investigation report along with certain documents in December 1990 and January 1997. [9] [9]
1997-02-17 Interpol officials issued a Red Corner Notice against Ottavio Quattrocchi. [9] [9]
2001-05-12 The Supreme Court of India noted that the three Hinduja brothers were charge-sheeted and passed an interim measure permitting them to travel abroad subject to conditions, to remain in force up to 20 August 2001, with the matter listed on 7 August 2001. [1] [1]
2004-02 As reported in a Lok Sabha question, the Delhi High Court's February 2004 judgment quashed proceedings against public servants. [10] [10]
2005-05 As reported in the same Lok Sabha question, the Delhi High Court's May 2005 judgment quashed proceedings against certain other accused. [10] [10]
Extra emergency powers for Punjab, 1988, withdrawn a year later
In March 1988, during the violence in Punjab, Parliament changed the Constitution to give the central government special emergency powers in that state alone, including the power to suspend basic freedoms there. In 1989 Parliament removed these powers, after the government said they were not needed.
A law or decision by the government
Punjab emergency powers
1988
Mixed
Extra emergency powers for Punjab, 1988, withdrawn a year later
In March 1988, during the violence in Punjab, Parliament changed the Constitution to give the central government special emergency powers in that state alone, including the power to suspend basic freedoms there. In 1989 Parliament removed these powers, after the government said they were not needed.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In March 1988, during the violence in Punjab, Parliament changed the Constitution to give the central government special emergency powers in that state alone, including the power to suspend basic freedoms there. In 1989 Parliament removed these powers, after the government said they were not needed.
Who did it
Punjab emergency powers
The evidence
The Constitution (Fifty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1988 was enacted on 30 March 1988. [2]
The 59th Amendment amended article 356(5) by substituting the proviso. [5]
The 59th Amendment inserted article 359A, providing for automatic suspension of Article 19 in Punjab on a Proclamation of Emergency on the ground of internal disturbance. [5]
The Constitution (Sixty-third Amendment) Act, 1989 omitted the proviso in article 356(5) and omitted article 359A. [6]
The 63rd Amendment's Statement of Objects and Reasons says the Government reconsidered and found no need for the special powers in regard to the Proclamation of Emergency in Punjab. [4]
Where it stands today
The special provisions inserted by the 59th Amendment were omitted by the 63rd Amendment. No judicial review of the 59th Amendment is identified in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the 59th Amendment on 30 March 1988, amending article 356(5) and inserting article 359A to allow special emergency provisions for Punjab. Parliament later enacted the 63rd Amendment, omitting the proviso in article 356(5) and article 359A, after the Government reconsidered and found no need for the special powers.
What it meant for the country
The 59th Amendment suspended Article 19 in Punjab and altered the duration of President's rule, but the 63rd Amendment omitted those provisions, restoring the ordinary constitutional position.
The 59th Amendment provided for automatic suspension of Article 19 of the Constitution if a Proclamation of Emergency on the ground of internal disturbance was issued in relation to Punjab. [5]
The 63rd Amendment omitted article 359A and the article 356(5) proviso, removing the special emergency powers for Punjab. [6]
Step by step
1987-05-11 A Presidential Proclamation under clause (1) of article 356 was issued in relation to Punjab. [6]
1988-03-30 The Constitution (Fifty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1988 was enacted. [2]
1988-05-10 The one-year period for the Punjab Proclamation was due to expire on 10 May 1988, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. [1]
1989 The Constitution (Sixty-third Amendment) Act, 1989 omitted the proviso in article 356(5) and omitted article 359A inserted by the 59th Amendment. [6]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is India's main law for prosecuting public servants who take bribes. It replaced the older 1947 law. The Act makes it an offence for a public servant to obtain or accept an undue advantage, with a prison term of three to seven years and a fine; it also punishes abetment the same way and makes companies liable to fines for bribing public servants. Special judges try these cases, and the government must give sanction before prosecution. The law stands, amended in 2018 and 2019.
A law or decision by the government
Public servants and corruption prosecutions
1988
Benefit to the nation
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is India's main law for prosecuting public servants who take bribes. It replaced the older 1947 law. The Act makes it an offence for a public servant to obtain or accept an undue advantage, with a prison term of three to seven years and a fine; it also punishes abetment the same way and makes companies liable to fines for bribing public servants. Special judges try these cases, and the government must give sanction before prosecution. The law stands, amended in 2018 and 2019.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is India's main law for prosecuting public servants who take bribes. It replaced the older 1947 law. The Act makes it an offence for a public servant to obtain or accept an undue advantage, with a prison term of three to seven years and a fine; it also punishes abetment the same way and makes companies liable to fines for bribing public servants. Special judges try these cases, and the government must give sanction before prosecution. The law stands, amended in 2018 and 2019.
Who did it
Public servants and corruption prosecutions
The evidence
The Act is called the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and extends to the whole of India (Section 1). [1]
The words 'except the State of Jammu and Kashmir' in Section 1 were omitted by Act 34 of 2019. [1]
Section 7 makes it an offence for a public servant to obtain or accept an undue advantage, punishable with imprisonment of not less than three years and up to seven years, and a fine. [2]
Section 12 makes abetment of an offence under the Act punishable with imprisonment of not less than three years and up to seven years, and a fine. [4]
Section 9 makes a commercial organisation punishable with a fine if a person associated with it gives or promises an undue advantage to a public servant to obtain or retain business. [5]
Where it stands today
The Act stands as amended. Individual prosecutions under it are pending before special courts, such as Special Case No. 03/2022 before the Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which extends to the whole of India. The Act makes it an offence for a public servant to obtain or accept an undue advantage, punishable with imprisonment of not less than three years and up to seven years and a fine; makes abetment punishable the same way; and makes commercial organisations liable to a fine for bribing a public servant. It provides for special judges to try offences and requires sanction before prosecution.
What it meant for the country
The Act established penalties of three to seven years' imprisonment and fines for public servants who take bribes, and fines for companies that bribe them, securing the public interest in prosecuting corruption.
A public servant who obtains or accepts an undue advantage faces imprisonment of not less than three years and up to seven years, and a fine (Section 7). [2]
Anyone who abets an offence under the Act faces imprisonment of not less than three years and up to seven years, and a fine (Section 12). [4]
A commercial organisation is punishable with a fine if a person associated with it gives or promises an undue advantage to a public servant to obtain or retain business (Section 9). [5]
Special judges can take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed for trial, and follow the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 5). [3]
Sanction is required before a court can take cognizance of offences under the Act (Section 19, as recorded in case law). [10]
Step by step
1988 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was enacted, extending to the whole of India. [1]
2012-04-17 A sanction order for prosecution was issued, dated 17.04.2012, in a case under the Act (Sanjaya Dikshit v CBI). [7]
2015-09-08 The CBI completed investigation and sought sanction from the appointing authority, the Department of Personnel and Training, for prosecuting an accused (Vijay Rajmohan v State). [9]
2018-07-26 Act 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018, amended the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [4]
2019 Act 34 of 2019 omitted the words 'except the State of Jammu and Kashmir' from Section 1 of the Act. [1]
2022-07-15 A charge-sheet dated 15.07.2022 was filed under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the Act (Shashikant Mishra v Union of India). [11]
2024-07-04 A court noted that a sanction order dated 17.04.2012 did not consider any input or opinion expressed by the Central Vigilance Commission with regard to sanction for prosecution (Sanjaya Dikshit v CBI). [7]
2025-01-24 A court recorded that under Section 19 of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018, sanction against the accused is necessary to take cognizance of offences (G. Balasubramanian v CBI). [10]
Sarkaria Commission report on centre-state relations, 1988
The Sarkaria Commission was a body set up by the Government of India to examine how powers, money and responsibilities should be shared between the central government and the states. It submitted its report in 1988 with recommendations on federal relations, including limits on the use of President's rule and rules for appointing Governors. The government set up the Inter-State Council in 1990, but as of 2012 had not issued a full action taken report on the commission's recommendations.
An official inquiry found fault
Union-state relations
1988
Mixed
Sarkaria Commission report on centre-state relations, 1988
The Sarkaria Commission was a body set up by the Government of India to examine how powers, money and responsibilities should be shared between the central government and the states. It submitted its report in 1988 with recommendations on federal relations, including limits on the use of President's rule and rules for appointing Governors. The government set up the Inter-State Council in 1990, but as of 2012 had not issued a full action taken report on the commission's recommendations.
An official inquiry found fault
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A government auditor or an inquiry commission examined this and reported what went wrong. This is a report, not a court verdict.
What happened
The Sarkaria Commission was a body set up by the Government of India to examine how powers, money and responsibilities should be shared between the central government and the states. It submitted its report in 1988 with recommendations on federal relations, including limits on the use of President's rule and rules for appointing Governors. The government set up the Inter-State Council in 1990, but as of 2012 had not issued a full action taken report on the commission's recommendations.
Who did it
Union-state relations
The evidence
The Sarkaria Commission was constituted under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notification constituting it in M. Karunanidhi vs Union of India. [2]
The Sarkaria Commission submitted its report on centre-state relations in 1988. [4][12]
The commission's terms of reference included examining the division of powers between central and state governments in India's federal system. [12]
The commission recommended that no person who is active in politics should be appointed as Governor. [4]
The commission recommended allowing municipalities to issue interest free bonds and permitting consignment tax to State Governments. [4]
Where it stands today
The commission completed its work and submitted its report in 1988. The government's response has been partial: the Inter-State Council was constituted in 1990, but no comprehensive Action Taken Report was issued as of 2012. The commission's recommendations continue to be cited in court judgments, including S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (Supreme Court) and Varaaki vs The Secretary (Madras High Court, 2023).
What was done
The Government of India constituted the Sarkaria Commission under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to examine centre-state relations. The commission submitted its report in 1988. The government constituted the Inter-State Council in 1990, but did not issue a comprehensive Action Taken Report on the commission's recommendations as of 2012.
What it meant for the country
The Sarkaria Commission's report led to the constitution of the Inter-State Council in 1990 and influenced judicial interpretation of Article 356, but many recommendations remained unimplemented as of 2012, with no Action Taken Report submitted 24 years after the report.
The Inter-State Council was constituted in 1990, 43 years after the Constitution provided for it under Article 263, during the National Front Government. [4]
The Sarkaria Commission's recommendation that 'no person who is active in politics should be appointed as Governor' was violated, as stated in the Lok Sabha debate of 21 May 2012. [4]
No Action Taken Report on the Sarkaria Commission's recommendations had been submitted by the Government of India as of 21 May 2012, 24 years after the report was submitted in 1988. [4]
The commission's recommendations on Article 356 — including prior warning to the State Government and testing a Chief Minister's majority on the floor of the Assembly — were cited by the Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai case, which addressed the misuse of President's rule. [1]
Two recommendations of the commission — allowing municipalities to issue interest free bonds and permitting consignment tax to State Governments — were not implemented by the Central Government, as stated in the Lok Sabha debate of 21 May 2012. [4]
Step by step
1983 The Sarkaria Commission was constituted under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to examine centre-state relations. The validity of the notification constituting the commission was upheld by the Supreme Court in M. Karunanidhi vs Union of India. [2]
1988 The Sarkaria Commission submitted its report on centre-state relations. The report examined the division of powers between central and state governments and made recommendations on federal issues including Article 356 (President's rule), Article 355 (duty of the Union to protect states), Governor appointments, and an All India Agriculture Service. [4][12][1][3][5]
1990 The Inter-State Council was constituted under Article 263 of the Constitution, 43 years after the Constitution provided for it, during the period of the National Front Government. [4]
1994 The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai vs Union of India cited the Sarkaria Commission's recommendations on Article 356, including that the President should give prior warning or opportunity to the State Government to correct itself before imposing President's rule, and that a Chief Minister's majority should be tested on the floor of the Assembly. [1]
2012-05-21 In a Lok Sabha debate on centre-state relations, MP Basu Deb Acharia stated that the Sarkaria Commission submitted its report in 1988 but the Government of India had not submitted any Action Taken Report on its recommendations. He noted that two recommendations — allowing municipalities to issue interest free bonds and permitting consignment tax to State Governments — were not implemented. He also stated that the commission's recommendation that 'no person who is active in politics should be appointed as Governor' had been violated. [4]
2023-06-27 The Madras High Court in Varaaki vs The Secretary referred to the Sarkaria Commission Report on the scope of Article 355, noting the commission's view that the term 'internal disturbance' is wider than 'domestic violence' and that the Union should sound the State Government and seek its cooperation before any action. [5]
Voting age lowered: Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988
In India, citizens had to be at least 21 years old to vote in elections to the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament, and to state legislative assemblies. Parliament passed the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988, which lowered the minimum voting age to 18 years. The change took effect on 28 March 1989 and stands today in Article 326 of the Constitution.
A law or decision by the government
Voters aged 18 to 20
1988
Benefit to the nation
Voting age lowered: Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988
In India, citizens had to be at least 21 years old to vote in elections to the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament, and to state legislative assemblies. Parliament passed the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988, which lowered the minimum voting age to 18 years. The change took effect on 28 March 1989 and stands today in Article 326 of the Constitution.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In India, citizens had to be at least 21 years old to vote in elections to the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament, and to state legislative assemblies. Parliament passed the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988, which lowered the minimum voting age to 18 years. The change took effect on 28 March 1989 and stands today in Article 326 of the Constitution.
Who did it
Voters aged 18 to 20
The evidence
Article 326 of the Constitution now states that every citizen of India who is not less than eighteen years of age is entitled to be registered as a voter in elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. [1]
The Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988 reduced the voting age for Indian citizens from 21 years to 18 years. [1]
Section 2 of the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988 made the substitution from 'twenty-one' to 'eighteen', dated 28 March 1989. [2]
The Act's short title is the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988. [3]
Where it stands today
The amendment stands as part of the Constitution. No proceedings are pending; the matter concluded with the amendment in force.
What was done
Parliament amended Article 326 of the Constitution through the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988, replacing the minimum voting age of twenty-one years with eighteen years for elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.
What it meant for the country
The amendment extended the right to vote to citizens aged 18 to 20, as Article 326 now sets the voting age at eighteen years.
Citizens aged 18 to 20 became eligible to vote in elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, where previously the minimum age was 21 years. [1]
The change also flowed into other laws: the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 substituted 'eighteen' for 'twenty-one' in its voter age provision. [2]
Step by step
1988 Parliament enacted the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988, whose short title is recorded in Section 1 of the Act. [3]
1989-03-28 Section 2 of the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988 substituted 'eighteen' for 'twenty-one' in the voting age provision, dated 28 March 1989. [2]
A law to punish attacks on Dalits and Adivasis, 1989
In 1989 Parliament passed a law to punish crimes and humiliation aimed at people of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It set up special courts for these cases and provided help for victims. The law began working on 30 January 1990 and is still in force. It was made stronger in 2015 and 2018, and the Supreme Court upheld the 2018 change.
A law or decision by the government
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
1989
Mixed
A law to punish attacks on Dalits and Adivasis, 1989
In 1989 Parliament passed a law to punish crimes and humiliation aimed at people of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It set up special courts for these cases and provided help for victims. The law began working on 30 January 1990 and is still in force. It was made stronger in 2015 and 2018, and the Supreme Court upheld the 2018 change.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1989 Parliament passed a law to punish crimes and humiliation aimed at people of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It set up special courts for these cases and provided help for victims. The law began working on 30 January 1990 and is still in force. It was made stronger in 2015 and 2018, and the Supreme Court upheld the 2018 change.
Who did it
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
The evidence
The Act is titled the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was enacted to prevent atrocities, provide Special Courts and relief and rehabilitation. [1][12]
Section 14 provides for Special Courts; the 2015 amendment substituted 'Special Courts and the Exclusive Special Courts' in the long title. [1][10]
Section 18A provides that no preliminary enquiry is required for registration of an FIR and no approval is required for arrest of an accused under the Act. [8]
Section 21(2) of the Act and Rule 3(1)(i) of the 1995 Rules provide for delineation of 'Identified Areas' (atrocity-prone areas) and measures for safety. [5][6]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force. The sources record no pending challenge. The constitutional challenge to the 2018 Amendment concluded in the Supreme Court on 10 February 2020 with the amendment upheld (as reported by cvmc.in).
What was done
Parliament enacted Act 33 of 1989 on 11 September 1989. The Central Government brought the Act into force on 30 January 1990 and notified the 1995 Rules on 31 March 1995. Parliament later amended the Act, including the 2015 Amendment Act and the addition of section 18A.
What it meant for the country
The Act established special courts and relief mechanisms, but a Rajya Sabha report tabled in March 2021 recorded a 15.55% rise in crimes against SC/ST women and children over 2017–2019, a conviction rate of 26.86% and pendency of 84.09%.
The Act created Special Courts and, after the 2015 amendment, Exclusive Special Courts for trial of offences and provided for relief and rehabilitation of victims. [1][10][12]
A report tabled in the Rajya Sabha in March 2021 recorded a 15.55% increase in crimes against women and children from Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes communities in 2017–2019, a conviction rate under the Act of 26.86%, and pendency of 84.09%. [7]
Step by step
1989-09-11 Parliament enacted the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act 33 of 1989). [3][4]
1995-03-31 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 were notified. [4][13]
2013-12-12 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2013 was introduced in the Lok Sabha. [11][13]
2015-12-31 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (No. 1 of 2016) was enacted, amending the long title to include Exclusive Special Courts and adding offences. [10]
2018-08-20 The Act was amended to add section 18A, providing that no preliminary enquiry or approval is required for registration of an FIR or arrest (date as reported by Wikipedia). [4][8]
2020-02-10 The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 (as reported by cvmc.in). [13]
Bhagalpur communal riots of October–November 1989 and the official inquiry
In October 1989, communal riots broke out in Bhagalpur district, Bihar, causing many deaths and injuries. The Bihar government set up a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, first with retired High Court judge Ram Nandan Prasad as its sole member and later with two members, referred to in an RTI request as the Bhatt and Singh Commission. The commission was asked to find out what led to the riots, whether they were planned, and whether the district administration acted properly. Its report contained remarks about L.K. Advani, which he challenged in court; the Supreme Court in 2003 said a person criticised in such a report can approach the court without waiting for the government to act. In 2006 Bihar set up another single-member commission on the same riots, and a challenge to its terms was heard in 2014.
Being investigated, nothing proven
Victims of the Bhagalpur riots
1989
Harm to the nation
Bhagalpur communal riots of October–November 1989 and the official inquiry
In October 1989, communal riots broke out in Bhagalpur district, Bihar, causing many deaths and injuries. The Bihar government set up a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, first with retired High Court judge Ram Nandan Prasad as its sole member and later with two members, referred to in an RTI request as the Bhatt and Singh Commission. The commission was asked to find out what led to the riots, whether they were planned, and whether the district administration acted properly. Its report contained remarks about L.K. Advani, which he challenged in court; the Supreme Court in 2003 said a person criticised in such a report can approach the court without waiting for the government to act. In 2006 Bihar set up another single-member commission on the same riots, and a challenge to its terms was heard in 2014.
Being investigated, nothing proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators or a court are still looking into this. Nothing has been proved.
What happened
In October 1989, communal riots broke out in Bhagalpur district, Bihar, causing many deaths and injuries. The Bihar government set up a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, first with retired High Court judge Ram Nandan Prasad as its sole member and later with two members, referred to in an RTI request as the Bhatt and Singh Commission. The commission was asked to find out what led to the riots, whether they were planned, and whether the district administration acted properly. Its report contained remarks about L.K. Advani, which he challenged in court; the Supreme Court in 2003 said a person criticised in such a report can approach the court without waiting for the government to act. In 2006 Bihar set up another single-member commission on the same riots, and a challenge to its terms was heard in 2014.
Who did it
Victims of the Bhagalpur riots
The evidence
In 1989, communal riots took place in Bhagalpur district, Bihar, resulting in many deaths and leaving some others injured. [4]
The Bihar government constituted a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952; initially Justice Ram Nandan Prasad was appointed as the sole member. [4]
The terms of reference included enquiring into the facts and circumstances leading to the communal disturbances on 24 October 1989 and thereafter, whether the disturbances were pre-planned, whether measures taken by the district administration were timely and adequate, and recommending measures to prevent recurrence. [4]
The commission later had two members; an RTI request referred to the 'Bhatt and Singh Commission of inquiry' and sought its report and the action taken report submitted to the Bihar Legislative Assembly. [1][7]
The commission's report contained remarks about L.K. Advani; he challenged portions of the report in the Patna High Court, and the Supreme Court in 2003 held that a person adversely commented upon without an opportunity to be heard can approach the court without waiting for government action. [4][7]
Where it stands today
The original commission's report was submitted and an action taken report was laid before the Bihar Legislative Assembly, as sought in an RTI request. The 2006 single-member commission's terms were challenged before the Jharkhand High Court, which in 2014 found the cause of action arose in Bihar; no further outcome is in the sources. The Supreme Court decided the appeal concerning the report's remarks on 16 September 2003.
What was done
The Bihar government appointed a commission of inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, with terms of reference covering the 24 October 1989 disturbances, whether they were pre-planned, the adequacy of district administration measures, and recommendations to prevent recurrence. It first appointed Justice Ram Nandan Prasad as sole member; the commission later had two members. The commission submitted a report, and an action taken report was submitted to the Bihar Legislative Assembly. In 2006 the Bihar Home (Special) Department issued a notification setting up a fresh single-member commission on the 1989-90 Bhagalpur riots.
What it meant for the country
The 1989 Bhagalpur riots caused many deaths and injuries, and the official inquiry reports were later the subject of court challenges and difficulties in access, with no compensation to victims shown in the sources.
The riots caused many deaths and left some others injured, as recorded by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani (2003). [4]
The inquiry report's adverse remarks against L.K. Advani were challenged in court, and the Supreme Court affirmed the right of persons criticised in commission reports to seek judicial review without waiting for government action. [4][7]
Victims' access to inquiry reports was obstructed: a 2010 Central Information Commission order recorded that several riot commission reports could not be located by the Delhi government. [1]
Step by step
1989-10-24 Communal disturbances began in Bhagalpur district and adjacent areas of Bihar. [4][7]
2003-09-16 The Supreme Court decided State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, holding that a person adversely commented upon by a Commission of Inquiry without an opportunity to be heard can seek judicial review without waiting for the government to act on the report. [4]
2006-02-26 The Bihar Home (Special) Department issued a Gazette notification setting up a single-member commission of enquiry under Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, regarding the communal riot of Bhagalpur and adjoining areas during October 1989-90. [2]
2010-09-17 The Central Information Commission passed an order in Suroor Mander v. Government of NCT of Delhi, noting that reports of riot inquiry commissions, including the 1989 Bhagalpur anti-Muslim riots report, were sought under the RTI Act and that some reports could not be located. [1]
2014-01-27 The Jharkhand High Court heard a writ petition challenging clauses of the 26 February 2006 Bihar notification and found that the cause of action arose in the State of Bihar. [2]
Reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Tribes in Parliament extended by ten years, 1989
Some seats in the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies are kept for candidates from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Constitution said this would end after 40 years. In 1989 Parliament extended it by another ten years, to 2000. It has been extended again several times since, and now runs to 2030.
A law or decision by the government
Reservation for SCs and STs in legislatures
1989
Benefit to the nation
Reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Tribes in Parliament extended by ten years, 1989
Some seats in the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies are kept for candidates from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Constitution said this would end after 40 years. In 1989 Parliament extended it by another ten years, to 2000. It has been extended again several times since, and now runs to 2030.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Some seats in the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies are kept for candidates from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Constitution said this would end after 40 years. In 1989 Parliament extended it by another ten years, to 2000. It has been extended again several times since, and now runs to 2030.
Who did it
Reservation for SCs and STs in legislatures
The evidence
Article 334 of the Constitution originally required the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the representation of the Anglo-Indian community by nomination in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies to cease after forty years from the commencement of the Constitution. [3][4]
The Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Act, 1989 amended Article 334 by substituting the words "fifty years" for the words "forty years". [1]
The amendment extended the period of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Anglo-Indian representation in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for another ten years, i.e. up to 2000. [1][3][6]
The Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Bill, 1989 (Bill No. 26 of 1989) was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 20 December 1989. [3]
The Statement of Objects and Reasons, attributed to Ram Vilas Paswan, stated that it was proposed to continue the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the representation of the Anglo-Indians by nomination for a further period of ten years. [3][6]
Where it stands today
No challenge to the 62nd Amendment is recorded in the sources. The extension to 2000 has concluded; later constitutional amendments extended the reservation further (79th to 2010, 95th to 2020, and 104th to 2030, with Anglo-Indian nomination ended, as reported by barristery.in).
What was done
Parliament enacted the Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Act, 1989. It amended Article 334 of the Constitution, replacing "forty years" with "fifty years", and thereby extended reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and Anglo-Indian representation by nomination, in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for another ten years, to 2000. The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 20 December 1989.
What it meant for the country
The amendment secured continued reserved political representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and Anglo-Indian nomination, in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies for another ten years, as recorded in the Act.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes continued to have reserved seats in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for an additional ten years beyond the original forty-year period, until 2000. [1][3]
Anglo-Indian representation by nomination in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies was also continued for the same further ten-year period. [1][3]
The reservation that would otherwise have ceased in 1990 was extended to 2000. [7]
Step by step
1989-12 Parliament enacted the Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Act, 1989, amending Article 334 to substitute "fifty years" for "forty years" and extending reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and Anglo-Indian representation by nomination, in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for another ten years, up to 2000. [1][3][4]
1989-12-20 The Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Bill, 1989 (Bill No. 26 of 1989) was introduced in the Rajya Sabha. [3]
In 1989, documents were published in newspapers claiming that the son of then politician V.P. Singh, Ajeya Singh, held a secret numbered account at First Trust Corporation Limited in St Kitts, a Caribbean island, containing US $21 million, with V.P. Singh named as the beneficiary. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India's federal investigating agency, said these documents were forged as part of a conspiracy to damage the reputation of V.P. Singh and expose Ajeya Singh to criminal prosecution. A CBI case was registered in 1990 against Chandraswami, K.N. Aggarwal and others, and P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary were later added as accused. The trial court acquitted Rao and Tewary, the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal, and the CBI challenged it in the Supreme Court.
Found not guilty by a court
P.V. Narasimha Rao; K.K. Tewary; Chandraswami
1989
Harm to the nation
The St Kitts forgery case, 1989
In 1989, documents were published in newspapers claiming that the son of then politician V.P. Singh, Ajeya Singh, held a secret numbered account at First Trust Corporation Limited in St Kitts, a Caribbean island, containing US $21 million, with V.P. Singh named as the beneficiary. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India's federal investigating agency, said these documents were forged as part of a conspiracy to damage the reputation of V.P. Singh and expose Ajeya Singh to criminal prosecution. A CBI case was registered in 1990 against Chandraswami, K.N. Aggarwal and others, and P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary were later added as accused. The trial court acquitted Rao and Tewary, the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal, and the CBI challenged it in the Supreme Court.
Found not guilty by a court
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court held a trial and cleared the accused. They are not guilty in law.
What happened
In 1989, documents were published in newspapers claiming that the son of then politician V.P. Singh, Ajeya Singh, held a secret numbered account at First Trust Corporation Limited in St Kitts, a Caribbean island, containing US $21 million, with V.P. Singh named as the beneficiary. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India's federal investigating agency, said these documents were forged as part of a conspiracy to damage the reputation of V.P. Singh and expose Ajeya Singh to criminal prosecution. A CBI case was registered in 1990 against Chandraswami, K.N. Aggarwal and others, and P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary were later added as accused. The trial court acquitted Rao and Tewary, the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal, and the CBI challenged it in the Supreme Court.
Who did it
P.V. Narasimha Rao; K.K. Tewary; Chandraswami
The evidence
The forged documents showed that on 16 September 1986 an account, being Account No. 29479, was opened in the name of Ajeya Singh at First Trust Corporation Limited, St Kitts, with Vishwanath Pratap Singh as beneficiary. [4]
A sum of US $21 million was alleged to have been deposited in the account during the period 16 September 1986 to 26 March 1987. [4]
A report of Shri B.M. Nehra, Senior Scientific Officer, dated 18 April 1996 said the photocopied signatures on the safe keeping agreement long form and numbered account agreement were forged signatures and not those of Ajeya Singh and Vishwanath Pratap Singh. [4]
The CBI case was registered on 25 May 1990 against Chandraswami, Aggarwal, former director of enforcement K.L. and others. [7]
The trial court acquitted P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary, and the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal; the CBI challenged it in the Supreme Court, which sent them notice, as reported by Telegraph India. [7]
Where it stands today
According to Telegraph India, the CBI's special leave petition challenging the acquittal of P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary, which the Delhi High Court had upheld, was pending in the Supreme Court, which sent them notice. For Chandraswami and K.N. Aggarwal, the Delhi High Court held in December 1999 that charges were prima facie justified, but the available documents do not state the final outcome of their trial.
What was done
The CBI registered a case on 25 May 1990 against Chandraswami, K.N. Aggarwal and others over forged St Kitts bank documents. It later charge-sheeted Chandraswami and Aggarwal, and added P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary as accused, alleging a conspiracy to defame V.P. Singh by fabricating documents showing his son held a secret US $21 million account. The trial court acquitted Rao and Tewary, and the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal. For Chandraswami and Aggarwal, the Delhi High Court held in 1999 that charges of criminal conspiracy, forgery and using forged documents were prima facie justified.
What it meant for the country
The forged documents injured the reputation of V.P. Singh and his son and led a Minister of State for Finance to tell Parliament that the account existed, while the Delhi High Court's prima facie findings recorded that the account did not exist and the documents were fabricated.
A Minister of State for Finance stated in the Rajya Sabha on 11 October 1989 that Ajeya Singh had a numbered account at First Trust Corporation Limited, St Kitts, a statement based on documents the Delhi High Court later found prima facie fabricated. [4]
Ajeya Singh was subjected to Enforcement Directorate demands for information and faced possible prosecution under FERA, as the documents exposed him to a hazard of criminal prosecution. [4]
The reputation of Vishwanath Pratap Singh and his son Ajeya Singh was harmed, and newspaper publication of the alleged account documents caused injury to them. [4]
The Delhi High Court recorded a prima facie finding that the alleged St Kitts account in Ajeya Singh's name did not exist and that the documents showing US $21 million on deposit were fabricated. [4]
No conviction for the forgery is documented in the available sources; the trial court acquitted P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary, and the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal. [7]
Step by step
1989-08-26 The Telegraph and The Hindustan Times published a copy of an alleged 'Numbered Account Agreement' describing Ajeya Singh as the account holder and V.P. Singh as beneficiary of an account at First Trust Corporation Limited, St Kitts. [4]
1989-10-11 Shri Eduardo Faleiro, then Minister of State for Finance, made a statement in the Rajya Sabha to the effect that Ajeya Singh had a numbered account at First Trust Corporation Limited, St Kitts, based on documents brought by a person named Nanday. [4]
1990-05-25 The CBI registered the case against Chandraswami, Aggarwal, former director of enforcement K.L. and others, alleging a conspiracy to defame V.P. Singh through forged documents showing him as beneficiary of his son Ajeya Singh's account in First Trust Corporation Ltd, St Kitts, with US $21 million deposited. [7]
1996-04-12 The CBI filed a charge-sheet in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, against Chandraswami and another appellant under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. [5]
1996-09-21 Charges were ordered to be framed against the newly added accused, including P.V. Narasimha Rao, who had been summoned for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. [5]
1996-09-26 In its charge-sheet, as reported by Telegraph India, the CBI alleged that Rao, Tewary, Chandraswami and others were part of a conspiracy to defame former Prime Minister V.P. Singh by forging documents showing Singh was a beneficiary of his son Ajeya Singh's account at First Trust Corporation Ltd, St Kitts. [7]
1996-11-07 The Supreme Court directed that both the appellants (Chandraswami and another) be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs one lakh each with one surety in like amount each, subject to conditions including not leaving the country and not contacting prosecution witnesses. [5]
1997-10-15 The proceedings before the trial court were stayed in a pending writ matter. [4]
1999-12-23 The Delhi High Court, in a matter concerning Chandraswami and K.N. Aggarwal, found no infirmity in the trial court's prima facie opinion that the so-called St Kitts account in the name of Ajeya Singh did not exist and that the documents were fabricated to show its existence; the High Court upheld the framing of charges under Sections 120B read with 195, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against them. [4]
Jain Commission of Inquiry into the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi
After the May 1991 assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the central government set up a one-man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice M.C. Jain under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to find out who was behind the killing beyond those already charged. The Commission was told to look into the sequence of events leading to the assassination and whether any persons or agencies not facing charges had conceived, prepared or planned it, and whether there was a wider conspiracy. The Commission completed its work and its final report, along with the government's memorandum of action taken, was laid before the Lok Sabha on 31 July 1998, and a motion to consider it was moved in the House.
Closed without a verdict
Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and alleged conspiracy
1991
Jain Commission of Inquiry into the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi
After the May 1991 assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the central government set up a one-man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice M.C. Jain under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to find out who was behind the killing beyond those already charged. The Commission was told to look into the sequence of events leading to the assassination and whether any persons or agencies not facing charges had conceived, prepared or planned it, and whether there was a wider conspiracy. The Commission completed its work and its final report, along with the government's memorandum of action taken, was laid before the Lok Sabha on 31 July 1998, and a motion to consider it was moved in the House.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
After the May 1991 assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the central government set up a one-man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice M.C. Jain under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to find out who was behind the killing beyond those already charged. The Commission was told to look into the sequence of events leading to the assassination and whether any persons or agencies not facing charges had conceived, prepared or planned it, and whether there was a wider conspiracy. The Commission completed its work and its final report, along with the government's memorandum of action taken, was laid before the Lok Sabha on 31 July 1998, and a motion to consider it was moved in the House.
Who did it
Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and alleged conspiracy
The evidence
The Justice M.C. Jain Commission of Inquiry was constituted by the central government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, by notification dated 23 August 1991. [2]
The Commission's terms of reference were: (a) the consequences of events leading, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperambudur, other than matters covered by the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice J.S. Verma; and (b) whether any person or persons or agencies were responsible for conceiving, preparing and planning the assassination and whether there was any conspiracy in this behalf, and if so all its ramifications. [2]
Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on 21 May 1991 at Sriperambudur. [1][2]
The Commission stated it would not go into areas covered by the chargesheet but would probe areas outside the chargesheet, holding an inquiry into persons and agencies other than those against whom a chargesheet had been filed in the Designated Court, who were responsible for conceiving, preparing and planning the assassination. [1]
The Commission said it would take into account the sequence of events from 1981 till 21 May 1991, the day of the assassination. [1]
Where it stands today
The Jain Commission completed its inquiry and submitted its final report, which was laid before the Lok Sabha on 31 July 1998. The sources do not record what action, if any, was taken on the Commission's findings by the government or Parliament after the report was laid.
What was done
The central government, by notification dated 23 August 1991, constituted a one-man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice M.C. Jain under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Commission held an inquiry, summoned witnesses under oath, and recorded statements including from Subramaniam Swamy and Ram Jethmalani. It submitted a final report which, along with the government's Memorandum of Action Taken, was laid on the Table of the Lok Sabha on 31 July 1998.
What it meant for the country
The sources document that the Commission was constituted, held an inquiry and submitted its final report to Parliament, but none of the cited documents record what the Commission actually found about officials or political actors, or what consequences followed, so the impact on the country cannot
The Commission was given the mandate to probe whether persons or agencies not facing charges in the Designated Court had conceived, prepared or planned the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and whether there was a conspiracy, but the sources do not record the findings of its final report or any consequences that followed. [1][2]
Step by step
1991-05-21 Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, was assassinated at Sriperambudur. The central government subsequently constituted the Justice M.C. Jain Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the assassination. [1][2]
1991-08-23 The Central Government issued a notification under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 constituting the Justice M.C. Jain Commission of Inquiry with the mandate to make an inquiry into: (a) the consequences of events leading, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperambudur (other than matters covered by the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice J.S. Verma); and (b) whether any person or persons or agencies were responsible for conceiving, preparing and planning the assassination and whether there was any conspiracy in this behalf, and if so all its ramifications. [2]
1993-07-02 The Jain Commission, in an order, stated it would not go into areas covered by the chargesheet but would probe areas outside the chargesheet, holding an inquiry into persons and agencies, other than those against whom a chargesheet had been filed in the Designated Court, who were responsible for conceiving, preparing and planning the assassination. The Commission said it would take into account the sequence of events beginning from 1981 till 21 May 1991. [1]
1995-03-20 Subramaniam Swamy, summoned as a witness under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, stated on oath before the Jain Commission that he would not disclose the source of his information regarding what was going on in the LTTE, saying he would disclose the source only if the Commissioner, Justice M.C. Jain, called him personally. Swamy had earlier been reported in the press as stating that the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Ms. J. Jayalalitha, had been tipped off by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) about the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi around 17 April 1991 in Madras. [2]
1998-07-31 The final report of the Jain Commission and the Memorandum of Action Taken on the report were laid on the Table of the Lok Sabha. A motion was moved in the Lok Sabha: "That this House do consider the final Report of the Jain Commission and Memorandum of Action Taken on the Report laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 31.7.1998." [7]
Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and alleged conspiracy
1991
Benefit to the nation
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
In 1991 Parliament passed a law that freezes the religious character of every place of worship as it stood on 15 August 1947, the day India became independent, and bars changing that character or asking courts to do so. Parliament enacted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991; some parts took effect on 11 July 1991 and the rest, including the ban on conversion, on 18 September 1991. The law remains in force; courts have since examined whether it bars suits over the Gyanvapi mosque area in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura, and a petition has challenged parts of it as unconstitutional.
A law or decision by the government
Religious places and religious communities
1991
Benefit to the nation
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
In 1991 Parliament passed a law that freezes the religious character of every place of worship as it stood on 15 August 1947, the day India became independent, and bars changing that character or asking courts to do so. Parliament enacted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991; some parts took effect on 11 July 1991 and the rest, including the ban on conversion, on 18 September 1991. The law remains in force; courts have since examined whether it bars suits over the Gyanvapi mosque area in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura, and a petition has challenged parts of it as unconstitutional.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1991 Parliament passed a law that freezes the religious character of every place of worship as it stood on 15 August 1947, the day India became independent, and bars changing that character or asking courts to do so. Parliament enacted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991; some parts took effect on 11 July 1991 and the rest, including the ban on conversion, on 18 September 1991. The law remains in force; courts have since examined whether it bars suits over the Gyanvapi mosque area in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura, and a petition has challenged parts of it as unconstitutional.
Who did it
Religious places and religious communities
The evidence
The long title of the Act states it is to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and provide for maintenance of the religious character as existed on 15 August 1947. [1]
Sections 3, 6 and 8 came into force on 18 September 1991; all other provisions are deemed to have come into force on 11 July 1991. [1]
Section 3 bars conversion of a place of worship, while section 4 declares the religious character as on 15 August 1947 and bars court jurisdiction. [1]
Section 4(2) proviso saves suits, appeals and legal proceedings pending on commencement if they concern conversion after the cut-off date. [1]
Section 6 makes conversion of a place of worship an offence, conviction for which disqualifies a person from Parliament or state legislature. [10]
Where it stands today
Petitions challenging the constitutionality of sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act and suits concerning the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura are before the Allahabad High Court; the Act has not been struck down.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Act prohibits conversion of any place of worship and requires maintenance of the religious character of every place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947. Sections 3, 6 and 8 came into force on 18 September 1991 and the remaining provisions are deemed to have come into force on 11 July 1991.
What it meant for the country
The Act secures the maintenance of the religious character of all places of worship as at independence and, according to the judiciary, serves the secular character of the nation.
The Act freezes the religious character of every place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947, preserving that character by prohibiting conversion and requiring its maintenance. [1]
The Act provides for the abatement of pending suits and bars fresh suits or legal proceedings concerning conversion of the religious character of a place of worship, closing those legal routes. [1]
The Supreme Court has recorded that conviction under section 6 of the Act disqualifies a person from being a member of Parliament or a state legislature. [10]
A court has stated that the purpose of the Act is to maintain the secular character of the nation. [6]
Step by step
1991-07-11 Provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 other than sections 3, 6 and 8 are deemed to have come into force on this date. [1]
1991-09-10 The Union Minister of Home Affairs explained the purpose of the law on the floor of the Lok Sabha; a member, Shrimati Malini Bhattacharya, spoke in support of the 15 August 1947 cut-off date, as recorded in the Lok Sabha Debates. [1]
1991-09-18 Parliament enacted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Sections 3, 6 and 8 came into force at once on the date of enactment; the other provisions are deemed to have come into force on 11 July 1991. [1]
2013-07-10 The Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v Union of India recorded section 6 (offence of conversion of a place of worship) of the Act among the offences whose conviction disqualifies a person from being a member of Parliament or a state legislature. [10]
2021-11-29 The court in Tirthankara and Others v Union of India stated that the purpose of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 was to maintain the secular character of this nation. [6]
1992 securities case: bank money moved to brokers; broker and bank officials convicted, no minister charged
In 1991–92 some brokers got money out of banks through deals in government bonds and similar papers, and used it to buy shares. Share prices shot up and then fell when this came out in April 1992. An RBI committee put the money that banks might not get back at about ₹4,024 crore. A committee of MPs said in December 1993 that this was “a deliberate and criminal misuse of Public funds” and that the Finance Ministry and RBI failed to stop it. A special court was set up. It convicted Harshad Mehta and bank officials in 1999, and the Supreme Court upheld these convictions in 2003.
Found guilty by a court
P.V. Narasimha Rao government; Finance Ministry under Manmohan Singh; broker Harshad Mehta and bank officials
1992
Harm to the nation
1992 securities case: bank money moved to brokers; broker and bank officials convicted, no minister charged
In 1991–92 some brokers got money out of banks through deals in government bonds and similar papers, and used it to buy shares. Share prices shot up and then fell when this came out in April 1992. An RBI committee put the money that banks might not get back at about ₹4,024 crore. A committee of MPs said in December 1993 that this was “a deliberate and criminal misuse of Public funds” and that the Finance Ministry and RBI failed to stop it. A special court was set up. It convicted Harshad Mehta and bank officials in 1999, and the Supreme Court upheld these convictions in 2003.
Found guilty by a court
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court held a trial and found the person guilty.
What happened
In 1991–92 some brokers got money out of banks through deals in government bonds and similar papers, and used it to buy shares. Share prices shot up and then fell when this came out in April 1992. An RBI committee put the money that banks might not get back at about ₹4,024 crore. A committee of MPs said in December 1993 that this was “a deliberate and criminal misuse of Public funds” and that the Finance Ministry and RBI failed to stop it. A special court was set up. It convicted Harshad Mehta and bank officials in 1999, and the Supreme Court upheld these convictions in 2003.
Who did it
The money was moved by stockbrokers, led by Harshad Mehta, working with officials of banks and companies. They were not Congress members or ministers. The Congress government of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was in charge, with Manmohan Singh (Congress) as Finance Minister. Parliament's committee blamed the Finance Ministry and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI, the central bank) for failing to act, but no minister was charged with a crime. Two Congress ministers it criticised, B. Shankaranand and Rameshwar Thakur, resigned in December 1994.
The evidence
The RBI's Janakiraman Committee, as quoted in the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report, put the “total problem exposure” of banks and finance companies at ₹4,024.45 crore. This is money at risk, not a final loss. The same report says the CBI put the figure at ₹8,383.31 crore and the Custodian at ₹3,650.60 crore. [1]
The JPC report (para 2.7) calls the matter “a deliberate and criminal misuse of Public funds through various types of securities transactions”. It says banks passed money to brokers through ready-forward deals (short loans against bonds) and unauthorised overdrafts, and found a shortfall of about ₹650 crore in securities at the State Bank of India. [1]
On the Finance Ministry, the JPC said it “failed to” see the problem coming, respond with purpose or apply correctives, and that the Finance Minister's accountability to Parliament “cannot be denied”, as quoted in the Lok Sabha debate of 29 December 1993. Atal Bihari Vajpayee (BJP) said in the same debate that Manmohan Singh's honesty was not in doubt. [4]
The JPC report says RBI supervision “failed from top to bottom”, that its top management treated violations of its own rules with callousness, and that “accountability was largely absent, punishment for a wrong committed was rare”. [1]
As reported by Outlook (2001), the JPC found that, under Petroleum Minister B. Shankaranand (Congress), who chaired the Oil Industry Development Board, the board's money was placed with Syndicate Bank and Canfina and passed on to private groups, costing the public “no less than Rs 130 crore”. The CBI asked for permission to prosecute him; the government did not give it. [10]
The Special Court convicted four people in one case on 27/28 September 1999: Harshad Mehta, a Maruti Udyog official, a UCO Bank official and an ANZ Grindlays Bank official, over about ₹39 crore of Maruti Udyog money. As reported by The Tribune, Mehta got five years' rigorous imprisonment. One accused was acquitted. [8][9]
Where it stands today
As checked on 9 October 2026: the convictions of Harshad Mehta and the bank and company officials in the Maruti Udyog case were upheld by the Supreme Court in January 2003. No minister was charged; Manmohan Singh stayed Finance Minister, and B. Shankaranand and Rameshwar Thakur resigned in December 1994. The Special Court in Mumbai and its Custodian are still dealing with the seized property of the people named in the case (latest order we found: 14 June 2024).
What was done
Banks issued 'bank receipts' (paper promises that bonds had been sold) without real bonds behind them, gave brokers cheap short-term money, and paid cheques into brokers' own accounts. The government made a special court and a Custodian (an official who seizes the property of accused people) by an ordinance on 6 June 1992, later an Act. The Finance Ministry and RBI were criticised for slow action, not for taking money.
What it meant for the country
Bank money worth thousands of crores was put at risk. Parliament's committee found that the Finance Ministry and RBI failed to stop it. Courts convicted the broker and bank officials, but no minister faced trial.
Banks and finance companies had about ₹4,024 crore at risk by the RBI committee's count. The National Housing Bank alone had ₹1,271.20 crore at risk. [1]
Broker Harshad Mehta and bank and company officials were convicted. No minister was charged with a crime; the CBI's request to prosecute B. Shankaranand was not granted. [8][10][12]
Two Congress ministers resigned in December 1994, a year after the JPC report. [7][11]
More than 30 years later, the Special Court was still deciding, in June 2024, what to do with shares seized from the Harshad Mehta group. [3]
Step by step
1992-04-30 The RBI sets up a committee under Deputy Governor R. Janakiraman to look into banks' securities deals, after checks at the State Bank of India. [1]
1992-06-06 The government makes an ordinance creating a Special Court and a Custodian to seize the property of accused people. [2]
1992-08-06 The Lok Sabha votes to set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee, chaired by Ram Niwas Mirdha. [1]
1992-08-18 The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 becomes law, replacing the ordinance. [2]
1993-12-21 The JPC report is placed in Parliament. Finance Minister Manmohan Singh offers to resign; he stays in office. [1][10]
1993-12-30 Rameshwar Thakur, by then a junior Rural Development minister, tells the Lok Sabha the JPC was unhappy with a 27-day delay on a file. He says he cleared it to the Finance Minister the day he got it, 6 May 1992. [5]
1994-07-27 MPs protest in the Lok Sabha that the government's Action Taken Report rejects parts of the JPC report. Vajpayee says the ministers have been cleared. [6]
1994-12 B. Shankaranand (by then Health Minister) and Rameshwar Thakur resign. As reported by The Moscow Times, both had been named in the securities matter. [7][11]
1999-09-28 The Special Court in Bombay convicts Harshad Mehta and three bank and company officials in the Maruti Udyog funds case. [8][9]
2003-01-14 The Supreme Court decides the appeals. Mehta had died in custody on 31 December 2001; his wife was allowed to carry on his appeal. As summarised by Caseon, the convictions were upheld. [8][12]
P.V. Narasimha Rao government; Finance Ministry under Manmohan Singh; broker Harshad Mehta and bank officials
1992
Harm to the nation
Liberhan Commission of Inquiry into the Babri Masjid demolition, 1992
The Babri Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya, was pulled down by a crowd on 6 December 1992. Soon after, the central government appointed a one-man commission of inquiry under Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan to find out what happened and who was responsible. It was asked to examine the sequence of events, the role of Uttar Pradesh's chief minister, ministers, officials, individuals and organisations, security lapses and the attack on journalists, and to report in three months. The report was laid before the Lok Sabha only on 24 November 2009 and debated on 7 and 8 December 2009. As quoted in Parliament, the report said the central and Uttar Pradesh governments could not be persuaded to produce evidence and that leaders such as Mulayam Singh and Kalyan Singh had spoken to the press about a conspiracy but denied it on oath.
An official inquiry found fault
Babri Masjid demolition and actors responsible
1992
Harm to the nation
Liberhan Commission of Inquiry into the Babri Masjid demolition, 1992
The Babri Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya, was pulled down by a crowd on 6 December 1992. Soon after, the central government appointed a one-man commission of inquiry under Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan to find out what happened and who was responsible. It was asked to examine the sequence of events, the role of Uttar Pradesh's chief minister, ministers, officials, individuals and organisations, security lapses and the attack on journalists, and to report in three months. The report was laid before the Lok Sabha only on 24 November 2009 and debated on 7 and 8 December 2009. As quoted in Parliament, the report said the central and Uttar Pradesh governments could not be persuaded to produce evidence and that leaders such as Mulayam Singh and Kalyan Singh had spoken to the press about a conspiracy but denied it on oath.
An official inquiry found fault
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A government auditor or an inquiry commission examined this and reported what went wrong. This is a report, not a court verdict.
What happened
The Babri Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya, was pulled down by a crowd on 6 December 1992. Soon after, the central government appointed a one-man commission of inquiry under Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan to find out what happened and who was responsible. It was asked to examine the sequence of events, the role of Uttar Pradesh's chief minister, ministers, officials, individuals and organisations, security lapses and the attack on journalists, and to report in three months. The report was laid before the Lok Sabha only on 24 November 2009 and debated on 7 and 8 December 2009. As quoted in Parliament, the report said the central and Uttar Pradesh governments could not be persuaded to produce evidence and that leaders such as Mulayam Singh and Kalyan Singh had spoken to the press about a conspiracy but denied it on oath.
Who did it
Babri Masjid demolition and actors responsible
The evidence
On 16 December 1992, the Central Government formed the opinion that appointment of a commission was necessary for inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, namely destruction of the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid structure at Ayodhya on 6 December 1992, and appointed Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan. [1]
The terms of reference included five clauses: sequence of events; role of UP Chief Minister, ministers, officials, individuals, organisations and agencies; deficiencies in security measures; assault on media persons; and any other related matters. [1]
On 11 June 1993 the Commission called on persons acquainted with facts to furnish information by affidavit. [1]
The report and the Memorandum of Action Taken were laid in the Lok Sabha on 24 November 2009. [2][3]
As quoted in Lok Sabha, the report said the Central Government and UP Government could not be persuaded to produce evidence, no attempt was made by the Central Government to examine anybody on conspiracy, and press statements by Mulayam Singh, Kalyan Singh and others were not supported on oath. [2]
Where it stands today
The Commission's inquiry has concluded; its report and the government's action-taken memorandum were placed before Parliament. Separate criminal trials over the demolition continued in courts, including a Supreme Court decision in State (through CBI) v Shri Kalyan Singh and others concerning two FIRs from 6 December 1992.
What was done
The central government appointed Justice Liberhan on 16 December 1992 and set five terms of inquiry. The commission called for affidavits and information from persons acquainted with the facts. Its report was laid in the Lok Sabha on 24 November 2009; it recorded that the central and Uttar Pradesh governments did not produce evidence and, according to India Today, found the demolition was meticulously planned and that Uma Bharti took responsibility.
What it meant for the country
The record shows the demolition was followed by communal violence in several states and President's rule in Uttar Pradesh, and the inquiry was slowed by the governments' failure to produce evidence.
The Supreme Court recorded that after the demolition the communal situation in the country deteriorated sharply and communal violence spread in several other states, and that President's rule was imposed in Uttar Pradesh as a consequence of the events at Ayodhya. [8]
The Commission's report, as quoted in Lok Sabha, recorded that the Central Government and UP Government could not be persuaded to produce evidence under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and that leaders who had spoken to the press about knowledge of the conspiracy denied it on oath. [2]
Step by step
1992-12-16 The Union Home Ministry issued notification 913(E) appointing Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, a sitting judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as a one-man Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The terms were: (a) sequence of events leading to and facts and circumstances relating to destruction of the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid structure on 6 December 1992; (b) role played by the Chief Minister, members of the Council of Ministers, officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and by individuals, concerned organisations and agencies; (c) deficiencies in security measures and other arrangements of the Uttar Pradesh Government; (d) sequence of events and facts relating to the assault on media persons; (e) any other matters related to the inquiry. The commission was to report as soon as possible but not later than three months. [1]
1993-06-11 The Commission issued a notification under Clause (b) of Rule 5(2) of the Commission of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 and notices under Rule 5 read with Order 10 of the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry (Regulation of Procedure) Order, 1993, calling upon certain individuals to furnish information or facts by affidavit. [1]
2009-11-24 The report of the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry and the Memorandum of Action Taken by the Government on the report were laid on the table of the Lok Sabha. As reported by India Today, the report described the demolition as a 'meticulously planned' act and said BJP leader Uma Bharti had 'categorically' taken responsibility for the incident. [2][3][11]
2009-12-07 The Lok Sabha began discussion on the report and the memorandum of action taken. [3]
2009-12-08 Further discussion was held. Members quoted from the report, including page 998 paragraph 178.19 that the Central Government and the UP Government could not be persuaded to produce evidence in accordance with the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952; and page 995 paragraph 178.42 that leaders including Mulayam Singh, Kalyan Singh and many others stated in the press about their knowledge of the conspiracy for the demolition but on oath before the Commission denied any such knowledge. [2]
Minority communities in India are those the central government officially notifies. In 1992 Parliament passed a law setting up the National Commission for Minorities, a body to watch over the rights and development of these communities. The commission can look into complaints, study discrimination, and report to Parliament, and it has the powers of a civil court for some of this work. The law is in force; the official list of notified minorities and the commission's early reports on communal incidents are not in the documents provided.
A law or decision by the government
Minority communities
1992
National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992
Minority communities in India are those the central government officially notifies. In 1992 Parliament passed a law setting up the National Commission for Minorities, a body to watch over the rights and development of these communities. The commission can look into complaints, study discrimination, and report to Parliament, and it has the powers of a civil court for some of this work. The law is in force; the official list of notified minorities and the commission's early reports on communal incidents are not in the documents provided.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Minority communities in India are those the central government officially notifies. In 1992 Parliament passed a law setting up the National Commission for Minorities, a body to watch over the rights and development of these communities. The commission can look into complaints, study discrimination, and report to Parliament, and it has the powers of a civil court for some of this work. The law is in force; the official list of notified minorities and the commission's early reports on communal incidents are not in the documents provided.
Who did it
Minority communities
The evidence
The Act defines "minority" as a community notified as such by the Central Government. [1][3][7]
The Commission consists of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and five Members nominated by the Central Government from persons of eminence, ability and integrity; five Members including the Chairperson shall be from the minority communities. [5]
The Commission's functions include evaluating the progress of development of minorities, monitoring constitutional and legal safeguards, making recommendations for their effective implementation, looking into specific complaints of deprivation of rights, causing studies into discrimination, conducting research on socio-economic and educational development, suggesting measures, and making periodical or special reports to the Central Government. [1][2][8]
While performing the functions of evaluating development, monitoring safeguards, and looking into complaints, the Commission has all the powers of a civil court trying a suit, including summoning and examining persons on oath, requiring production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, requisitioning public records, and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and documents. [1][10]
The Chairperson, Members and employees of the Commission are deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. [6]
Where it stands today
The Act is in force. No proceedings are pending. The government notification listing notified minorities and the Commission's early reports on communal incidents are not among the documents provided.
What was done
Parliament enacted the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, which constituted the National Commission for Minorities and assigned it functions including evaluating minority development, monitoring safeguards, and looking into complaints. The Central Government made rules in 1995 for the Commission's accounts, audit and annual report.
What it meant for the country
The documents establish that a national body with civil-court powers was created to protect minority rights, but they do not record any outcomes such as complaints resolved, reports issued, or funds spent.
The Act created the National Commission for Minorities, a body with the powers of a civil court to summon and examine people on oath, require the production of documents, receive evidence on affidavits, and requisition public records when evaluating minority development, monitoring safeguards, or looking into complaints of deprivation of rights. [1][10]
The Act requires the Central Government to lay the Commission's recommendations before each House of Parliament with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed and the reasons for any non-acceptance; recommendations concerning a State are to be laid before that State's legislature in the same way. [1][2][8]
The Central Government is to pay grants to the Commission, after appropriation by Parliament, for the purposes of the Act. [1]
Step by step
1992 The National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 was enacted. It defines "minority" as a community notified as such by the Central Government, and provides for a Commission consisting of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and five Members nominated by the Central Government, with five Members including the Chairperson from minority communities. [1][3][5][7]
1995 The Central Government made the National Commission for Minorities (Annual Statement of Accounts, Audit and Annual Report) Rules, 1995, under Section 15 read with Section 11(1) and Section 12 of the Act. The rules require the Commission's accounts to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and an annual report to be prepared and submitted to the Central Government. [9][12]
The Bombay riots of 1992–93 and the Srikrishna Commission
After the Babri Masjid was demolished on 6 December 1992, Bombay (now Mumbai) had large-scale riots in December 1992 and January 1993. The Maharashtra government set up a one-man commission under Justice B.N. Srikrishna to inquire into the riots. The commission found that police firing in two incidents was unjustified, including one in which nine people were killed. The state government first did not accept the report, but after cases in the Supreme Court it referred the findings to its Crime Branch and later to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Criminal proceedings against some police officers were still going on in the records seen.
Being investigated, nothing proven
Maharashtra government (Sudhakarrao Naik, Sharad Pawar); Bombay Police
1992
Harm to the nation
The Bombay riots of 1992–93 and the Srikrishna Commission
After the Babri Masjid was demolished on 6 December 1992, Bombay (now Mumbai) had large-scale riots in December 1992 and January 1993. The Maharashtra government set up a one-man commission under Justice B.N. Srikrishna to inquire into the riots. The commission found that police firing in two incidents was unjustified, including one in which nine people were killed. The state government first did not accept the report, but after cases in the Supreme Court it referred the findings to its Crime Branch and later to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Criminal proceedings against some police officers were still going on in the records seen.
Being investigated, nothing proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators or a court are still looking into this. Nothing has been proved.
What happened
After the Babri Masjid was demolished on 6 December 1992, Bombay (now Mumbai) had large-scale riots in December 1992 and January 1993. The Maharashtra government set up a one-man commission under Justice B.N. Srikrishna to inquire into the riots. The commission found that police firing in two incidents was unjustified, including one in which nine people were killed. The state government first did not accept the report, but after cases in the Supreme Court it referred the findings to its Crime Branch and later to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Criminal proceedings against some police officers were still going on in the records seen.
Who did it
Maharashtra government (Sudhakarrao Naik, Sharad Pawar); Bombay Police
The evidence
The Government of Maharashtra appointed the Srikrishna Commission on 25 January 1993 under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the riots in the Bombay Police Commissionerate area in December 1992 and January 1993. [2][5][8][11]
The Commission commenced work in July 1993 and recorded statements of about 400 witnesses and police officers. [2]
The Government of Maharashtra issued a notification on 23 January 1996 discontinuing the inquiry by the Srikrishna Commission. [3]
The Commission submitted its report on 16 February 1998 and it was published on 16 December 1998. [5][8][10]
The report was taken up in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 6 August 1998. [5][6]
Where it stands today
Criminal proceedings arising from the Srikrishna Commission findings were pending in various courts; the CBI was directed to investigate the Hari Masjid incident and the Supreme Court affirmed that direction. The Supreme Court writ petitions on implementation of the report (W.P. No. 527 of 1998 by the Action Taken Committee and W.P. No. 542 of 1999 by the Human Rights Union of Supreme Court's Lawyers) had been filed but their final outcome is not shown in the sources.
What was done
The Maharashtra government appointed the Srikrishna Commission on 25 January 1993, then in 1996 issued a notification to discontinue the inquiry, but the commission later submitted its report on 16 February 1998. The state government initially did not accept the report's findings; after petitions in the Supreme Court, it referred the report to the Crime Branch CID in 2000, set up a Special Task Force, and in 2008 consented to a CBI inquiry into the Hari Masjid firing.
What it meant for the country
The record shows at least 870 people were killed and 2,298 injured in the Bombay riots, and the commission found that police firing in two incidents was unjustified, including one that killed nine people.
The riots left 870 people dead and 2,298 injured according to figures recorded by the Bombay High Court (271 killed in December 1992 and 599 in January 1993; 1058 injured in December and 1240 in January). [4]
The Srikrishna Commission found that police firing at Suleman Bakery on 9 January 1993 was totally unjustified and that the police personnel had committed murder of nine persons. [10]
The Srikrishna Commission found that the firing by police including Sub Inspector Kapse at Hari Masjid was unjustified and that the officer's behaviour was inhuman and brutal. [5]
Step by step
1992-12-06 The Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was demolished; riots began in Bombay on or after this date. [2]
1993-01-09 Police opened fire at Suleman Bakery in Bombay; nine people died in the firing. [10]
1993-01-10 Police opened fire near Hari Masjid, Sewree, Bombay. [5]
1993-01-25 Government of Maharashtra appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the riots of December 1992 and January 1993. [2][5][8][11]
1993-07 The Srikrishna Commission commenced work, called for affidavits and recorded statements of about 400 witnesses and police officers. [2]
1996-01-23 The Government of Maharashtra issued a notification discontinuing the inquiry by the Srikrishna Commission. [3]
1998-02-16 The Srikrishna Commission submitted its report. [5][10]
1998-06-23 The Bombay High Court recorded that 271 people were killed in December 1992 and 599 in January 1993, that 1058 were injured in December and 1240 in January, and that 2570 persons were arrested in December and 6103 in January. [4]
1998-08-06 The Srikrishna Commission report was taken up in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. [5][6]
1998-12-16 The Srikrishna Commission report was published. [5][8]
2000-01-07 The State of Maharashtra stated before the Supreme Court that it would refer the report and conclusions of the Srikrishna Commission to the Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai for further investigation. [5][8][10]
2000-08-31 The Government of Maharashtra constituted a Special Task Force for further investigation and action in accordance with law on possible offences concluded by the Commission report. [5]
2001-01-11 The Additional Commissioner of Police, Special Task Force, submitted a report on the conclusions of the Srikrishna Commission. [5]
2001-05-25 An affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court placing the Special Task Force findings before the Court. [5]
2008-02-17 The Government of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, consenting to an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the Hari Masjid incident dealt with in paragraphs 24.23 to 24.25 of the Srikrishna Commission Report, Volume II. [5][8]
2008-12-18 The Bombay High Court directed a CBI investigation into the Hari Masjid incident; the Supreme Court later affirmed this order. [5][8]
Maharashtra government (Sudhakarrao Naik, Sharad Pawar); Bombay Police
1992
Mixed
Village panchayats and city councils were written into the Constitution, 1992
Before 1992, village panchayats and city councils had no place in the Constitution. Parliament changed the Constitution so that every state must have them. Elections must be held every five years, one-third of the seats are kept for women, and seats are kept for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The changes took effect in 1993.
A law or decision by the government
Local self-government
1992
Mixed
Village panchayats and city councils were written into the Constitution, 1992
Before 1992, village panchayats and city councils had no place in the Constitution. Parliament changed the Constitution so that every state must have them. Elections must be held every five years, one-third of the seats are kept for women, and seats are kept for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The changes took effect in 1993.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Before 1992, village panchayats and city councils had no place in the Constitution. Parliament changed the Constitution so that every state must have them. Elections must be held every five years, one-third of the seats are kept for women, and seats are kept for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The changes took effect in 1993.
Who did it
Local self-government
The evidence
The 73rd Amendment inserted Part IX (Articles 243 to 243-O) and Schedule 11, while the 74th Amendment inserted Part IX-A and the Twelfth Schedule into the Constitution. [1][2]
The amendments came into force on 24 April 1993 and 1 June 1993 respectively, after receiving Presidential assent on 20 April 1993. [1][9]
The three-tier Panchayati Raj system comprises Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti (Block) and Zilla Parishad (District), under Article 243B. [2]
Article 243D provides reservation of one-third seats for women in all three tiers and reservation for SC/ST in proportion to their population. [2]
Article 243E mandates a five-year term for Panchayats, with elections mandatory before expiry and fresh elections within six months of dissolution. [2]
Where it stands today
The constitutional amendments stand enacted and are in force. Implementation is a continuing matter before the States: each State must enact or amend its own laws to give effect to the amendments, constitute a State Election Commission and a State Finance Commission every five years, and conduct elections before expiry of each five-year term. CAG performance audits of implementation of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act have been conducted and reported; audit paragraphs outstanding for compliance are placed before State Legislatures.
What was done
Parliament enacted the two constitutional amendments, which received Presidential assent on 20 April 1993 and came into force on 24 April 1993 and 1 June 1993 respectively. The 73rd Amendment Act inserted Part IX (Articles 243 to 243-O) and the Eleventh Schedule, creating a constitutionally mandated three-tier system of Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad, with one-third reservation for women and proportionate reservation for SC/ST, mandatory elections every five years, a State Election Commission under Article 243K and a State Finance Commission under Article 243I.
What it meant for the country
The amendments created a constitutionally mandated third tier of government covering every State, but CAG audits record persistent weaknesses in financial reporting and devolution at the Panchayat level.
Local self-government ceased to depend on the will of the State Government: its existence, term and composition became constitutionally guaranteed, with the State Election Commission placed on the same footing as the Election Commission of India for local elections. [3]
The reservation framework in the amendments is described as the most far-reaching social-justice provision in post-Emergency Indian constitutional law, mandating one-third reservation for women in seats and chairperson posts and proportionate reservation for SC/ST. [1][2]
Each State was required to constitute a State Finance Commission every five years to review the financial position of Panchayats and Municipalities, and a State Election Commission to conduct regular elections every five years. [1][2][6]
The Comptroller and Auditor General recorded that the amendments leave implementation of many provisions to the discretion of the State, calling this the 'principal weakness' of both amendments, since the provisions are permissive rather than mandatory as to the endowment of powers. [3][9]
CAG audits of Panchayati Raj Institutions in Bihar reported financial reporting issues, and noted that Audit, Budget and Taxation Rules were 'under process for the last five years', with details of outstanding audit paragraphs for the last five financial years being placed before the State Legislature. [5][7]
Step by step
1991 The Constitution (Seventy-second Amendment) Bill, 1991 was introduced; its Statement of Objects and Reasons noted that Panchayati Raj Institutions had been unable to acquire 'the status and dignity of viable and responsive people's bodies' due to reasons including the absence of regular elections. The Bill was enacted as the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992. [8]
1992 The Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 and the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 were enacted. The 73rd Amendment inserted Part IX (Articles 243 to 243-O) and Schedule 11 into the Constitution, giving constitutional status to a three-tier Panchayati Raj system, mandating five-year terms, regular elections, reservations for SC/ST/women, a State Election Commission and a State Finance Commission. The 74th Amendment provided constitutional status to Municipalities and added the Twelfth Schedule. [1][2]
1993-04-20 The 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts received Presidential assent on 20 April 1993. [1]
1993-04-24 The 73rd Constitutional Amendment came into force on 24 April 1993, observed as Panchayati Raj Day. [1][9]
1993-06-01 The 74th Constitutional Amendment came into force on 1 June 1993. [1][9]
2020 A Comptroller and Auditor General manual noted that the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments leave implementation of many provisions to the discretion of the State, and that the State Acts enable Panchayats and Municipalities to function on subjects in the Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules. [9]
A permanent commission for the backward classes was set up, 1993
After the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling on OBC reservation, Parliament set up a permanent commission to decide which communities should be on the OBC list and to hear complaints about the list. The government normally had to follow its advice. In 2018 the commission was written into the Constitution, which gave it a stronger standing.
A law or decision by the government
Backward Classes Commission
1993
Benefit to the nation
A permanent commission for the backward classes was set up, 1993
After the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling on OBC reservation, Parliament set up a permanent commission to decide which communities should be on the OBC list and to hear complaints about the list. The government normally had to follow its advice. In 2018 the commission was written into the Constitution, which gave it a stronger standing.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
After the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling on OBC reservation, Parliament set up a permanent commission to decide which communities should be on the OBC list and to hear complaints about the list. The government normally had to follow its advice. In 2018 the commission was written into the Constitution, which gave it a stronger standing.
Who did it
Backward Classes Commission
The evidence
The National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 was enacted as Act 27 of 1993; its Statement of Objects and Reasons records the Supreme Court judgment dated 16 November 1992 directing establishment of a permanent body within four months. [1]
Section 9(1) requires the Commission to examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward class in the lists and hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion; Section 9(2) provides that the Commission's advice shall ordinarily be binding upon the Central Government. [4]
The Press Information Bureau states that the mandate of the National Commission for Backward Classes is under Section 9(1) of the NCBC Act, 1993. [5]
The National Commission for Backward Classes (Repeal) Bill, 2017 sought to repeal the 1993 Act, stating that after the setting up of the National Commission of Backward Classes under the Constitution the Act would become redundant. [6]
The Constitution (123rd Amendment) Bill, 2017 sought to establish the National Commission for Backward Classes under the Constitution and remove the power of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to examine matters related to backward classes. [7]
Where it stands today
No pending proceeding is identified. The 2017 repeal and amendment Bills and the reported 102nd Constitutional Amendment are the concluding legislative entries shown.
What was done
Parliament enacted the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 as Act 27 of 1993, creating a statutory commission. Section 9 directed the Commission to examine inclusion requests and over-inclusion or under-inclusion complaints and made its advice ordinarily binding on the Central Government. In 2017, Bills were introduced to repeal the 1993 Act and give the Commission constitutional status; the 102nd Constitutional Amendment later elevated it as reported.
What it meant for the country
The cited documents record an institutional gain: a statutory body with ordinarily binding advice on OBC list inclusion was created and later given constitutional status, though no outcome figures are provided.
The creation of the Commission made OBC list inclusion and exclusion decisions subject to a body whose advice under Section 9(2) was "ordinarily binding" on the Central Government. [4]
The 102nd Constitutional Amendment inserted Article 338B, giving the National Commission for Backward Classes constitutional status, as reported. [2]
Step by step
1992-11-16 The Supreme Court, in its judgment on matters arising from reservation orders under Article 16(4), directed the Government of India to constitute a permanent body within four months for examining requests for inclusion and exclusion in the backward classes list. [1][2]
1993 The National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 (27 of 1993) was enacted, establishing the National Commission for Backward Classes as a statutory body. [1][2]
1993 Section 9 of the Act empowered the Commission to examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward class in the lists, hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion, and tender advice to the Central Government; Sub-section (2) made the advice ordinarily binding on the Central Government. [4][5]
2017 The National Commission for Backward Classes (Repeal) Bill, 2017 was introduced in Lok Sabha to repeal the 1993 Act, and the Constitution (123rd Amendment) Bill, 2017 was introduced alongside to give the Commission constitutional status. [6][7]
2018 The National Commission for Backward Classes was elevated to a constitutional body by the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, which inserted Article 338B, as reported by anantamias.com. [2]
Coal mines were given to companies without an auction; the Supreme Court cancelled 214 of them
From 1993 to 2010, central governments gave coal mining areas to companies through a committee of officials, without any bidding. In August 2014 the Supreme Court said this was unfair and against the law, and in September 2014 it cancelled 214 of the 218 allocations. In 2022 a Delhi court found a former coal secretary, H.C. Gupta, and another senior official guilty of conspiring to cheat the government in one of these allocations.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Union governments 1993–2010 (Congress-led 1993–96 and 2004–10; NDA 1998–2004)
1993
Harm to the nation
Coal mines were given to companies without an auction; the Supreme Court cancelled 214 of them
From 1993 to 2010, central governments gave coal mining areas to companies through a committee of officials, without any bidding. In August 2014 the Supreme Court said this was unfair and against the law, and in September 2014 it cancelled 214 of the 218 allocations. In 2022 a Delhi court found a former coal secretary, H.C. Gupta, and another senior official guilty of conspiring to cheat the government in one of these allocations.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
From 1993 to 2010, central governments gave coal mining areas to companies through a committee of officials, without any bidding. In August 2014 the Supreme Court said this was unfair and against the law, and in September 2014 it cancelled 214 of the 218 allocations. In 2022 a Delhi court found a former coal secretary, H.C. Gupta, and another senior official guilty of conspiring to cheat the government in one of these allocations.
Who did it
Union governments 1993–2010 (Congress-led 1993–96 and 2004–10; NDA 1998–2004)
The evidence
The Supreme Court declared all coal block allocations made between 1993 and 2011 through the Screening Committee and Government Dispensation Route arbitrary and illegal on 25 August 2014. [1][7]
The Supreme Court cancelled 214 out of 218 coal block allocations on 24 September 2014; PIB releases state 204 out of 218. [3][5][6][8][9]
The Supreme Court allowed 42 functional or near-functional coal blocks a six-month wind-down until 31 March 2015 and imposed a fine of ₹295 per metric ton of coal mined. [5][6]
A Delhi court sentenced H.C. Gupta to three years imprisonment and K.S. Kropha to two years imprisonment on 8 August 2022 for the Lohara East coal block allocation. [4]
The CBI submitted that a loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore was caused to the government exchequer due to the coal block allocation. [4]
Where it stands today
The Supreme Court proceedings in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary concluded with the 25 August 2014 judgment and 24 September 2014 order. The CBI special court convicted H.C. Gupta and K.S. Kropha on 8 August 2022; no appeal is noted in the sources. The Supreme Court ordered CBI criminal investigations into bribery and illegal gratification; their status is not stated in the sources.
What was done
Union governments allocated coal blocks through the Screening Committee and Government Dispensation Route from 1993. The Supreme Court declared these allocations arbitrary and illegal on 25 August 2014 and cancelled 214 blocks on 24 September 2014. A Delhi court convicted former coal secretary H.C. Gupta and former joint secretary K.S. Kropha on 8 August 2022 for conspiring to cheat the government in the Lohara East coal block allocation.
What it meant for the country
The record shows loss of public resources and illegal allocation, with the CBI stating a loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the exchequer and the Supreme Court cancelling 214 coal block allocations.
The CBI stated that a loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore was caused to the government exchequer due to the coal block allocation. [4]
The cancellation left 42 functional or near-functional coal blocks with a six-month wind-down period and a fine of ₹295 per metric ton of coal mined, and required the government to invite bids for re-allocation of the cancelled blocks. [5][6]
Former coal secretary H.C. Gupta was sentenced to three years imprisonment and fined ₹1 lakh; former joint secretary K.S. Kropha was sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined ₹50,000. [4]
The Supreme Court ordered CBI criminal investigations into wrongdoing including bribery and illegal gratification, potentially involving international joint venture partners in protracted proceedings. [5][6]
Step by step
2014-08-25 The Supreme Court, in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 516, declared all coal block allocations made between 1993 and 2011 through the Screening Committee and Government Dispensation Route arbitrary and illegal, except those made through competitive bidding. [1][7]
2014-09-24 The Supreme Court cancelled 214 out of 218 coal block allocations. Press Information Bureau releases state the number as 204 out of 218. The Court allowed 42 coal blocks with functional or near-functional end-use plants a six-month window to wind down, with cancellation effective 31 March 2015, and imposed a fine of ₹295 per metric ton of coal mined from the date of commissioning. The Court also ordered CBI criminal investigations into wrongdoing including bribery and illegal gratification. [3][5][6][8][9]
2022-08-08 A Delhi court (Special Judge Arun Bhardwaj) sentenced former coal secretary H.C. Gupta to three years imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh, and former joint secretary K.S. Kropha to two years imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, for conspiring to cheat the government in the allocation of the Lohara East coal block to Grace Industries Limited. The CBI submitted that a loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore was caused to the government exchequer due to the coal block allocation. [4]
Union governments 1993–2010 (Congress-led 1993–96 and 2004–10; NDA 1998–2004)
1993
Mixed
JMM bribery case: the 1993 confidence vote
In July 1993, a no-confidence motion was moved against the Congress government of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. The government was short of a majority, and it was alleged that four MPs of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were paid bribes to vote against the motion. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigated and filed charge sheets. A special court convicted Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh in 2000, but the Delhi High Court acquitted them in 2002. Separately, the Supreme Court in 1998 held that MPs who took bribes and then voted were protected by parliamentary immunity, a ruling that a seven-judge Supreme Court bench overruled in 2024 in Sita Soren v Union of India.
Found not guilty by a court
P.V. Narasimha Rao government; the 1993 confidence vote
1993
Mixed
JMM bribery case: the 1993 confidence vote
In July 1993, a no-confidence motion was moved against the Congress government of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. The government was short of a majority, and it was alleged that four MPs of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were paid bribes to vote against the motion. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigated and filed charge sheets. A special court convicted Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh in 2000, but the Delhi High Court acquitted them in 2002. Separately, the Supreme Court in 1998 held that MPs who took bribes and then voted were protected by parliamentary immunity, a ruling that a seven-judge Supreme Court bench overruled in 2024 in Sita Soren v Union of India.
Found not guilty by a court
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court held a trial and cleared the accused. They are not guilty in law.
What happened
In July 1993, a no-confidence motion was moved against the Congress government of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. The government was short of a majority, and it was alleged that four MPs of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were paid bribes to vote against the motion. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigated and filed charge sheets. A special court convicted Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh in 2000, but the Delhi High Court acquitted them in 2002. Separately, the Supreme Court in 1998 held that MPs who took bribes and then voted were protected by parliamentary immunity, a ruling that a seven-judge Supreme Court bench overruled in 2024 in Sita Soren v Union of India.
Who did it
P.V. Narasimha Rao government; the 1993 confidence vote
The evidence
The no-confidence motion was moved on 26 July 1993 and defeated on 28 July 1993, with four JMM MPs voting against it. [3][4][7][9]
The CBI filed three charge sheets dated 30 October 1996, 9 December 1996 and 22 January 1997 in the court of the Special Judge, New Delhi. [9]
The Supreme Court's 1998 majority held that MPs who accepted a bribe and voted in Parliament enjoyed immunity under Article 105(2), while bribe-givers did not. [1][9]
The Delhi High Court on 15 March 2002 acquitted P.V. Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh after they had been convicted by the Special Judge in 2000. [3]
The Supreme Court's seven-judge bench on 4 March 2024 in Sita Soren v Union of India overruled the 1998 immunity ruling, holding that lawmakers are not protected from bribery charges under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). [5][10][12]
Where it stands today
All proceedings have concluded. The Special Judge's 2000 convictions of P.V. Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh were set aside by the Delhi High Court in 2002, and no further appeal is recorded in the sources. The 1998 Supreme Court immunity ruling was overruled by the seven-judge bench in 2024, but no reopening of the original JMM bribery case is indicated.
What was done
The P.V. Narasimha Rao government faced a no-confidence motion in July 1993 and defeated it with the votes of four JMM MPs who were later alleged to have taken bribes. The CBI investigated and filed charge sheets. A special court convicted Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh, but the Delhi High Court acquitted them. The Supreme Court initially granted immunity to bribe-taking MPs who voted, then in 2024 removed that immunity.
What it meant for the country
The 1998 immunity ruling shielded bribe-taking MPs from prosecution, but the 2024 overruling removed that shield; meanwhile the acquittal of the main accused left no one convicted in the original bribery case.
The Supreme Court's 1998 majority ruling meant JMM MPs who had allegedly taken bribes and voted could not be prosecuted, removing a legal avenue for accountability in the case. [1][9]
In 2002, the Delhi High Court acquitted P.V. Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh, overturning the special court's convictions, so no individual was ultimately held criminally liable for the alleged bribery connected to the confidence vote. [3]
The 2024 seven-judge Supreme Court ruling removed parliamentary immunity for bribery, allowing such cases to proceed against lawmakers and correcting a 26-year-old legal position. [5][10][12]
Step by step
1993-07-26 A no-confidence motion was moved against the P.V. Narasimha Rao government by Ajay Mukhopadhyay, a CPI(M) MP. [7][9]
1993-07-28 The no-confidence motion was defeated. Four JMM MPs — Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Shailendra Mahto and Simon Marandi — voted against the motion. [3][4]
1996-10-30 The CBI filed its first charge sheet in the case before the Special Judge, New Delhi. [9]
1996-12-09 The CBI filed a second charge sheet. [9]
1997-01-03 The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused, directing their release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each in the event of arrest, until the Special Judge decided their regular bail applications. [7]
1997-01-22 The CBI filed a third charge sheet. [9]
1997-09-12 The Delhi High Court upheld the Special Judge's order framing charges against the accused. [4]
1998-04-17 The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v State (CBI/SPE). A majority held that MPs who accepted bribes and then cast their votes in Parliament were immune from prosecution under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. The court also held that bribe-givers had no immunity, and an accused who did not vote (Ajit Singh) had no immunity. [1][9]
1998-12-16 The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions filed by the CBI against the 1998 judgment, citing an inordinate delay of 179 days in filing them. [2]
2000 The Special Judge convicted P.V. Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh on the charges. [3]
2002-03-15 The Delhi High Court allowed the appeals of P.V. Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh and set aside their convictions, acquitting them. [3]
2024-03-04 A seven-judge Supreme Court bench in Sita Soren v Union of India overruled the 1998 majority ruling, holding that MPs and MLAs do not enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) and 194(2) for bribery. [5][10][12]
P.V. Narasimha Rao government; the 1993 confidence vote
1993
Harm to the nation
Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry into the Bombay communal riots
After the Babri Masjid was demolished in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992, Bombay (now Mumbai) saw two waves of communal riots in December 1992 and January 1993. The Maharashtra government set up a one-man inquiry under sitting High Court judge Justice B.N. Srikrishna on 25 January 1993 to find out what happened, who was responsible, and whether the police acted properly. The commission recorded about 400 witnesses and later also looked into the March 1993 bomb blasts. It found the riots had political, social and economic causes, named police officers it said took part in violence, and in the Hari Masjid firing found the police version fabricated and the firing unjustified, killing six Muslims. The state government wound up the commission in January 1996 before it reported, but the report was dated 16 February 1998 and published on 16 December 1998.
Being investigated, nothing proven
Victims of the Bombay riots of 1992–93
1993
Harm to the nation
Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry into the Bombay communal riots
After the Babri Masjid was demolished in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992, Bombay (now Mumbai) saw two waves of communal riots in December 1992 and January 1993. The Maharashtra government set up a one-man inquiry under sitting High Court judge Justice B.N. Srikrishna on 25 January 1993 to find out what happened, who was responsible, and whether the police acted properly. The commission recorded about 400 witnesses and later also looked into the March 1993 bomb blasts. It found the riots had political, social and economic causes, named police officers it said took part in violence, and in the Hari Masjid firing found the police version fabricated and the firing unjustified, killing six Muslims. The state government wound up the commission in January 1996 before it reported, but the report was dated 16 February 1998 and published on 16 December 1998.
Being investigated, nothing proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators or a court are still looking into this. Nothing has been proved.
What happened
After the Babri Masjid was demolished in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992, Bombay (now Mumbai) saw two waves of communal riots in December 1992 and January 1993. The Maharashtra government set up a one-man inquiry under sitting High Court judge Justice B.N. Srikrishna on 25 January 1993 to find out what happened, who was responsible, and whether the police acted properly. The commission recorded about 400 witnesses and later also looked into the March 1993 bomb blasts. It found the riots had political, social and economic causes, named police officers it said took part in violence, and in the Hari Masjid firing found the police version fabricated and the firing unjustified, killing six Muslims. The state government wound up the commission in January 1996 before it reported, but the report was dated 16 February 1998 and published on 16 December 1998.
Who did it
Victims of the Bombay riots of 1992–93
The evidence
The Maharashtra government appointed Justice B.N. Srikrishna as a one-man commission on 25 January 1993 under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. [1][3]
The commission recorded statements of about 400 witnesses, including police officers. [1]
The commission found the causes of the riots were political, socio-economic and demographic. [3]
The commission found police officials named in paragraph 1.30 of Volume I actively participated in riots, communal incidents, looting and arson. [3]
In the Hari Masjid firing, the commission found the police version fabricated and the firing unjustified, killing six Muslims. [4][7]
Where it stands today
The commission's inquiry concluded with its 1998 report. The Maharashtra government issued an action-taken memorandum and accepted most police reform recommendations. A CBI investigation into the Hari Masjid firing was directed by the Supreme Court, and in 2022 the Supreme Court directed a committee to ensure compensation to eligible victims.
What was done
The Maharashtra government appointed the commission, then wound it up in January 1996 before it had reported. The commission nevertheless produced a report in 1998 finding police and others responsible; the state government issued an action-taken memorandum, accepted most police reform recommendations, and dismissed one police officer. The Supreme Court later directed a CBI investigation into the Hari Masjid firing and a committee to ensure compensation to eligible victims.
What it meant for the country
The riots caused about 900 deaths and 2,036 injuries, and the commission found police officials participated in violence, making the matter harmful.
About 900 people died and 2,036 were injured in the December 1992 and January 1993 riots, as stated by the Supreme Court in 2022. [3]
A total of 2,267 criminal cases were registered and 8,673 persons were arrested in connection with the riots, according to a Maharashtra government affidavit. [2]
The Srikrishna Commission found that police officials named in paragraph 1.30 of Volume I actively participated in riots, communal incidents, looting and arson. [3]
In the Hari Masjid firing, the commission found the police version fabricated and the firing unjustified, resulting in the killing of six Muslims. [4][7]
The Maharashtra government wound up the commission in January 1996 before it submitted its report, delaying the inquiry. [3][2]
One police officer was dismissed from service following disciplinary inquiry initiated after the commission's report. [3]
The Supreme Court in 2022 directed a committee to ensure compensation is paid to eligible victims of the 1992 and 1993 riots. [3]
Step by step
1992-12-06 The Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was demolished; communal riots followed in Bombay from 6 December 1992. [1][3]
1993-01-25 The Maharashtra government appointed Justice B.N. Srikrishna, a sitting Bombay High Court judge, as a one-man commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, with terms covering the circumstances, responsibility, police measures and long-term measures. [1][3]
1993-07 The commission commenced work, called for public affidavits and recorded statements of about 400 witnesses, including police officers. [1]
1993-07-08 The Maharashtra government issued a resolution to give financial assistance to persons affected by the riots and the serial bomb blasts. [3]
1996-01-23 The Maharashtra government disbanded the commission, citing inordinate delay in submitting its report. [3][2]
1998-02-16 The commission's report was dated 16 February 1998; it was published on 16 December 1998. It found the causes were political, socio-economic and demographic; named police officials in paragraph 1.30 of Volume I as actively participating in riots, communal incidents, looting and arson; and in the Hari Masjid firing found the police version fabricated and the firing unjustified, killing six Muslims. [3][4][7]
2000-01-07 The State of Maharashtra stated before the Bombay High Court that it would refer the commission's report and conclusions to the Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai for further investigation and action. [4]
2000-08-31 The Maharashtra government constituted a Special Task Force for further investigation and action on possible offences concluded by the commission report. [4]
2008-02-07 The Maharashtra government issued a notification consenting to CBI inquiry into the Hari Masjid incident as dealt with in the Srikrishna Commission report, Volume II, paragraphs 24.23 to 24.25. [4][7]
2008-12-18 The Bombay High Court directed a CBI investigation into the Hari Masjid firing incident, finding the police version fabricated and the firing unjustified. [4]
2022-11-04 The Supreme Court directed a committee to ensure compensation is paid in terms of the 8 July 1993 government resolution to various categories of victims of the 1992 and 1993 riots. [3]
The central government took over the land around the disputed site at Ayodhya, 1993
After the Babri Masjid was demolished in December 1992, Parliament passed a law in April 1993 by which the central government took over about 67.7 acres at Ayodhya, including the disputed site. The law also ended the court cases about who owned the site. In 1994 the Supreme Court allowed the takeover but cancelled the part that ended the court cases, so those cases started again.
A law or decision by the government
Ayodhya disputed site acquisition
1993
Mixed
The central government took over the land around the disputed site at Ayodhya, 1993
After the Babri Masjid was demolished in December 1992, Parliament passed a law in April 1993 by which the central government took over about 67.7 acres at Ayodhya, including the disputed site. The law also ended the court cases about who owned the site. In 1994 the Supreme Court allowed the takeover but cancelled the part that ended the court cases, so those cases started again.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
After the Babri Masjid was demolished in December 1992, Parliament passed a law in April 1993 by which the central government took over about 67.7 acres at Ayodhya, including the disputed site. The law also ended the court cases about who owned the site. In 1994 the Supreme Court allowed the takeover but cancelled the part that ended the court cases, so those cases started again.
Who did it
Ayodhya disputed site acquisition
The evidence
The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (Act 33 of 1993) was enacted on 3 April 1993 to provide for the acquisition of certain area at Ayodhya and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. [7][4]
The Act's preamble recorded a long-standing dispute relating to the structure commonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid, situated in village Kot Ramchandra in Ayodhya, Pargana Haveli Avadh. [7]
The Act vested 67.703 acres, including the disputed site, in the Union of India. [5]
Section 4(3) of the Act abated all pending suits and legal proceedings relating to the disputed area. [4][5]
The Act authorised eventual transfer of the land to trusts for construction of a Ram temple and a mosque. [5]
Where it stands today
The constitutional challenge concluded with the Supreme Court's judgment of 24 October 1994. The pending suits that Section 4(3) had abated were revived; status quo at the disputed site was maintained under the Act and Supreme Court orders [3][6].
What was done
Parliament enacted the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, which vested 67.703 acres including the disputed site in the Union of India and abated pending suits [5][7]. The Supreme Court in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v Union of India upheld the Act except Section 4(3), which it declared unconstitutional and severed, reviving the pending suits [3][4].
What it meant for the country
The Supreme Court upheld the acquisition of 67.703 acres including the disputed site but struck down the provision that had extinguished pending suits, so the outcome was mixed: state acquisition stood while judicial remedies were restored.
The Supreme Court struck down Section 4(3), so the Act's abatement of all pending suits was removed and the pending suits were revived, restoring the judicial remedy that the provision had extinguished. [3][4]
The acquisition of 67.703 acres including the disputed site was upheld, and the land vested in the Union of India, with eventual transfer to trusts for a Ram temple and a mosque authorised. [5]
Status quo at the disputed site was maintained under the Act and the orders of the Supreme Court. [6]
Step by step
1992-12-06 The Babri Masjid had stood on the 2.77-acre disputed site until this date. [4]
1993-04-03 Parliament enacted the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (Act 33 of 1993). [7][4]
1993-04-03 The Act vested 67.703 acres (including the disputed site) in the Union of India, abated all pending litigation under Section 4(3), and authorised eventual transfer of the land to trusts for construction of a Ram temple and a mosque. [5]
1994-10-24 The Supreme Court delivered judgment in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v Union of India: it upheld the Act's constitutional validity except Section 4(3), struck down Section 4(3), declined to answer the Presidential Reference, and revived the pending suits. [3][4]
The National Human Rights Commission was set up, 1993
In 1993 the government set up the National Human Rights Commission, a body that people can complain to when their basic rights are violated. The law also provides for a human rights commission in each state. The commission began work in October 1993 and the law is still in force.
A law or decision by the government
Human rights protection
1993
Benefit to the nation
The National Human Rights Commission was set up, 1993
In 1993 the government set up the National Human Rights Commission, a body that people can complain to when their basic rights are violated. The law also provides for a human rights commission in each state. The commission began work in October 1993 and the law is still in force.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1993 the government set up the National Human Rights Commission, a body that people can complain to when their basic rights are violated. The law also provides for a human rights commission in each state. The commission began work in October 1993 and the law is still in force.
Who did it
Human rights protection
The evidence
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is Act No. 10 of 1994, dated 8 January 1994. [3][4][7]
Section 3(1) of the Act provides that the Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as the National Human Rights Commission to exercise the powers conferred upon, and to perform the functions assigned to, it under the Act. [2][13][20][21]
Section 2(d) of the Act defines 'human rights' as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. [2][15][16]
Section 21 of the Act provides that a State Government may constitute a body to be known as the (Name of the State) Human Rights Commission. [2]
Section 30 of the Act specifies Human Rights Courts. [2]
Where it stands today
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 stands as amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019. No proceedings are pending; the matter is a standing enactment.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which the Central Government used to constitute the National Human Rights Commission; the NHRC was in fact constituted on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Ordinance of 28 September 1993, and the Act (No. 10 of 1994) followed on 8 January 1994.
What it meant for the country
The Act created a statutory national mechanism for the protection of human rights, defining 'human rights' as the rights to life, liberty, equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India, and establishing the NHRC on 12
The Act defined 'human rights' as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. [2][15][16]
The National Human Rights Commission was constituted on 12 October 1993, giving India a dedicated statutory body to exercise the powers and perform the functions assigned under the Act. [6][17][18]
The Act empowered State Governments to constitute State Human Rights Commissions under Section 21, and provided for Human Rights Courts specified under Section 30. [2]
The NHRC's functions under Section 12 include reviewing the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommending appropriate remedial measures. [2]
Step by step
1993-09-28 The Protection of Human Rights Ordinance was promulgated on 28 September 1993, as reported by Wikipedia. [6]
1993-10-12 The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was constituted on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Ordinance of 28 September 1993. [6][17][18]
1994-01-08 The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (Act No. 10 of 1994) was enacted and commenced on 8 January 1994, providing for the constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commissions in States and Human Rights Courts. [3][4][7]
2019 The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 amended the 1993 Act, including adding the chairpersons of the National Commission for Backward Classes, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as members of the NHRC. [2][8][9][10][11][19]
Reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Tribes was restored, 1995
In 1992 the Supreme Court had said reservation applies when people are hired, not when they are promoted. In 1995 Parliament changed the Constitution so that governments can reserve promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes where they are too few in the higher posts. More changes followed in 2000 and 2001. In 2006 the Supreme Court allowed all of these, provided a government first shows with data that the group is backward and under-represented.
A law or decision by the government
Reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
1995
Benefit to the nation
Reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Tribes was restored, 1995
In 1992 the Supreme Court had said reservation applies when people are hired, not when they are promoted. In 1995 Parliament changed the Constitution so that governments can reserve promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes where they are too few in the higher posts. More changes followed in 2000 and 2001. In 2006 the Supreme Court allowed all of these, provided a government first shows with data that the group is backward and under-represented.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1992 the Supreme Court had said reservation applies when people are hired, not when they are promoted. In 1995 Parliament changed the Constitution so that governments can reserve promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes where they are too few in the higher posts. More changes followed in 2000 and 2001. In 2006 the Supreme Court allowed all of these, provided a government first shows with data that the group is backward and under-represented.
Who did it
Reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
The evidence
The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, dated 16 November 1992, observed that reservation under Article 16(4) is confined to initial appointment and cannot extend to reservation in promotion. [1]
The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 inserted clause (4A) to Article 16 to extend the benefit of reservation in promotions, as clause (4) is confined only to reservation in initial appointments. [6]
The Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 inserted Article 16(4B) on carrying forward unfilled reserved vacancies. [4]
The Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 inserted a proviso to Article 335 on relaxing qualifying marks. [4]
The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 explicitly added "with consequential seniority" to Article 16(4A). [3][4]
Where it stands today
The 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Amendment Acts stand enacted. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India concluded in the Supreme Court with the amendments upheld. The Constitution (117th Amendment) Bill, 2012 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 5 September 2012.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, inserting Article 16(4A) to permit reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Parliament then enacted the 81st, 82nd and 85th Amendment Acts of 2000-2001, and the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj upheld the provisions as enabling, subject to conditions.
What it meant for the country
The amendments secured reservation in promotions, carry-forward of unfilled vacancies and consequential seniority for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while the Supreme Court made their use conditional on demonstrated backwardness, inadequate representation and efficiency.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes obtained a constitutional basis for reservation in promotions, which Article 16(4) had been held not to permit. [2][6]
Unfilled reserved vacancies could be carried forward to subsequent years and treated separately from the vacancies of the year they are being filled. [4]
Promotions under Article 16(4A) could carry consequential seniority. [3][4]
The Supreme Court conditioned reservation in promotions on identification of backwardness, inadequate representation and maintenance of overall efficiency. [4]
In April 2012, the Supreme Court struck down Uttar Pradesh Government Seniority Rules for reservation in promotions because the state had not undertaken the required exercise. [7]
Step by step
1992-11-16 The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India observed that reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16(4) is confined to initial appointment and cannot extend to reservation in the matter of promotion. [1]
1995 The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 inserted clause (4A) in Article 16 to extend the benefit of reservation in promotions to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. [2][6]
2000 The Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 inserted Article 16(4B) on carrying forward unfilled vacancies reserved for SCs/STs to subsequent years, to be treated separately from the vacancies of the year they are being filled. [4]
2000 The Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 inserted a proviso to Article 335 on relaxing qualifying marks. [4]
2001 The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 explicitly added "with consequential seniority" to Article 16(4A). [3][4]
2006 The Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, upheld the constitutional validity of the 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Amendment Acts relating to reservation in promotions for SCs and STs. [4]
2012-04 The Supreme Court struck down the Uttar Pradesh Government Seniority Rules providing for reservation in promotions, holding that the state government had not undertaken any exercise to identify backwardness and inadequate representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. [7]
2012-09-05 The Constitution (117th Amendment) Bill, 2012 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, seeking to substitute Article 16(4A) and stating that the provision shall override Article 335. [7]
Reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
1996
Former telecom minister Sukh Ram: the case over wealth far beyond his income
Sukh Ram was a former telecom minister. In 1996 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the central police agency, filed a case saying he owned far more than his known income could explain. In 2007 he was still on trial in that case. In a separate case about buying telecom equipment, the Delhi High Court upheld his conviction in December 2011, as reported.
Accused in court, not yet proven
CBI disproportionate assets case against former communications minister Sukh Ram
1996
Former telecom minister Sukh Ram: the case over wealth far beyond his income
Sukh Ram was a former telecom minister. In 1996 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the central police agency, filed a case saying he owned far more than his known income could explain. In 2007 he was still on trial in that case. In a separate case about buying telecom equipment, the Delhi High Court upheld his conviction in December 2011, as reported.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators have filed charges in court. The trial is not over, so nobody has been found guilty.
What happened
Sukh Ram was a former telecom minister. In 1996 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the central police agency, filed a case saying he owned far more than his known income could explain. In 2007 he was still on trial in that case. In a separate case about buying telecom equipment, the Delhi High Court upheld his conviction in December 2011, as reported.
Who did it
CBI disproportionate assets case against former communications minister Sukh Ram
The evidence
FIR No. … RC-4A/96 was registered against Sukh Ram under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on assets found and those coming to the CBI's knowledge that were allegedly substantially disproportionate to his known sources of income. [1]
In 2007, Sukh Ram was an accused facing trial in case RC4(A)/96 and applied for early disposal, stating his advanced age and poor state of health. [4]
Where it stands today
In the disproportionate-assets case (RC4(A)/96), trial was pending before a Special Judge as of 9 October 2007, and the Delhi High Court was considering a transfer petition. In the separate equipment supply case, the Delhi High Court upheld convictions on 21 December 2011, as reported by Economic Times.
What was done
The CBI registered FIR No. … RC-4A/96 against Sukh Ram under the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged disproportionate assets. In 2007, Sukh Ram, as an accused facing trial, applied for early disposal of the case, citing advanced age and poor health.
Step by step
2007-10-09 Delhi High Court recorded a petition by Sukh Ram for transfer of case No. RC4(A)/96ACU-IV under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 from a particular Special Judge, and noted his application for early disposal citing advanced age and poor health. [4]
2011-12-21 As reported by Economic Times, the Delhi High Court upheld convictions of former Telecom Minister Sukh Ram, Runu Ghosh and P Rama Rao in the telecom scam case related to an equipment supply deal between Advanced Radio Masts Pvt Ltd and the Telecom Department. [3]
CBI disproportionate assets case against former communications minister Sukh Ram
1996
Mixed
MPs were paid to save the Narasimha Rao government in 1993; the court first said they could not be tried
In July 1993 the P.V. Narasimha Rao government survived a no-confidence vote in the Lok Sabha by 265 votes to 251. Some MPs of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were accused of taking money to vote for the government. In 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that MPs who took a bribe and then voted as agreed could not be prosecuted, because the Constitution protects votes cast in Parliament. In 2024 seven judges of the Supreme Court said that ruling was wrong: taking a bribe is not protected.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
JMM MPs bribery in 1993 no-confidence motion
1996
Mixed
MPs were paid to save the Narasimha Rao government in 1993; the court first said they could not be tried
In July 1993 the P.V. Narasimha Rao government survived a no-confidence vote in the Lok Sabha by 265 votes to 251. Some MPs of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were accused of taking money to vote for the government. In 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that MPs who took a bribe and then voted as agreed could not be prosecuted, because the Constitution protects votes cast in Parliament. In 2024 seven judges of the Supreme Court said that ruling was wrong: taking a bribe is not protected.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
In July 1993 the P.V. Narasimha Rao government survived a no-confidence vote in the Lok Sabha by 265 votes to 251. Some MPs of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were accused of taking money to vote for the government. In 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that MPs who took a bribe and then voted as agreed could not be prosecuted, because the Constitution protects votes cast in Parliament. In 2024 seven judges of the Supreme Court said that ruling was wrong: taking a bribe is not protected.
Who did it
JMM MPs bribery in 1993 no-confidence motion
The evidence
In the July 1993 Monsoon Session of the Tenth Lok Sabha, a no-confidence motion was moved against the minority Congress(I) government led by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. [6]
The no-confidence motion was moved by Shri Ajay Mukhopadhyaya, a CPI(M) M.P. [3]
The motion was defeated on 28 July 1993 by 265 votes to 251. [6]
The 1998 five-judge Constitution Bench majority granted immunity from prosecution to MPs/MLAs in bribery cases if they fulfilled their end of the bargain, citing Article 105(2). [1][2]
A seven-judge Supreme Court bench in 2024 overruled the 1998 majority, holding that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). [5][7]
Where it stands today
The 1998 majority ruling in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) was overruled by a seven-judge Supreme Court bench in 2024. The 2024 overruling arose in a criminal appeal against a High Court order refusing to quash a chargesheet in a Rajya Sabha election bribery case.
What was done
The Lok Sabha defeated the no-confidence motion on 28 July 1993 by 265 votes to 251. The Supreme Court first ruled in 1998 that legislators who accepted bribes and voted as agreed were immune from prosecution under Article 105(2); in 2024 a seven-judge bench overruled that ruling and held that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege.
What it meant for the country
The record shows both harm and correction: the 1998 ruling insulated MPs who took cash for votes from prosecution for 26 years, and the 2024 seven-judge bench overruled it, holding bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege.
The 1998 majority ruling insulated MPs who accepted cash for votes from criminal prosecution for twenty-six years, provided they voted as bribed. [1]
The 2024 seven-judge bench said the 1998 judgment had wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy. [1][7]
The 2024 ruling removed that immunity, holding legislators who accept bribes for speech or vote are not immune from prosecution under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). [5][7]
A summary of the case recorded that the alleged conspiracy involved payment of over 3 crore rupees to MPs to vote against the no-confidence motion. [3]
Step by step
1993-07-20 The no-confidence motion was taken up for discussion in the Lok Sabha; the debate continued till 28 July 1993. [3]
1993-07-26 The vote on the no-confidence motion was held. [1]
1993-07-28 The no-confidence motion was defeated by 265 votes to 251. [6]
1998-04-17 The Supreme Court delivered P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE). The five-judge Constitution Bench majority granted immunity from prosecution to MPs/MLAs in bribery cases if they fulfilled their end of the bargain, citing Article 105(2). [1][2][3]
2024-03-07 A seven-judge Supreme Court bench overruled the 1998 majority in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), holding that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). [2][5][7]
Sukh Ram: the telecom equipment case and the cash found, 1996
Sukh Ram was a Union Minister of State for Communications from January 1993 to May 1996. In August 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation searched his homes and found large amounts of cash. He was prosecuted for having assets beyond his known income and for decisions on telecom equipment contracts. In February 2009 a Delhi trial court convicted him in the assets case and sentenced him to three years in prison; an appeal was pending in the Delhi High Court as of September 2009.
Found guilty by a court
Sukh Ram (Minister of Communications, 1993–96)
1996
Harm to the nation
Sukh Ram: the telecom equipment case and the cash found, 1996
Sukh Ram was a Union Minister of State for Communications from January 1993 to May 1996. In August 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation searched his homes and found large amounts of cash. He was prosecuted for having assets beyond his known income and for decisions on telecom equipment contracts. In February 2009 a Delhi trial court convicted him in the assets case and sentenced him to three years in prison; an appeal was pending in the Delhi High Court as of September 2009.
Found guilty by a court
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court held a trial and found the person guilty.
What happened
Sukh Ram was a Union Minister of State for Communications from January 1993 to May 1996. In August 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation searched his homes and found large amounts of cash. He was prosecuted for having assets beyond his known income and for decisions on telecom equipment contracts. In February 2009 a Delhi trial court convicted him in the assets case and sentenced him to three years in prison; an appeal was pending in the Delhi High Court as of September 2009.
Who did it
Sukh Ram (Minister of Communications, 1993–96)
The evidence
Cash recovered from 12 Safdarjung Lane, Delhi was ₹2,45,28,844 and from the Mandi house was ₹1,13,51,520. [2]
The Income Tax Department treated ₹3,61,80,414 as unexplained cash under Section 69A. [3]
Known income during the check period 20 June 1991 to 16 August 1996 was ₹84,98,180. [2]
Sukh Ram was Minister of State for Communications from 18 January 1993 to 16 May 1996. [4]
The CBI registered the telecom equipment case on 8 August 1996. [4]
Where it stands today
The 2009 disproportionate assets conviction was under appeal in Delhi High Court as of 25 September 2009 (Crl. A. 287/2009). A later Delhi High Court order of 21 December 2011 in Sukh Ram v CBI is listed in the sources but its text is not provided. The Enforcement Directorate matter was before Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 5536/2016, decided on 28 January 2019.
What was done
As minister, Sukh Ram directed orders for telecom equipment. The CBI searched his residences on 16 August 1996 and recovered cash. A Delhi trial court convicted him on 20 February 2009 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income and sentenced him on 25 February 2009 to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
What it meant for the country
The record shows a former communications minister convicted for holding assets far beyond his known income, with large amounts of cash seized and tax assessed, though an appeal was pending.
The CBI recovered ₹2,45,28,844 from his Delhi residence and ₹1,13,51,520 from his Mandi house on 16 August 1996. [2]
The Income Tax Department treated ₹3,61,80,414 as unexplained cash under Section 69A. [3]
A Delhi trial court sentenced Sukh Ram to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine in 2009. [4]
The Enforcement Directorate alleged he received ₹1,39,35,000 between March and April 1995 without RBI permission. [5]
Step by step
1993-01-18 Sukh Ram became Union Minister of State for Communications with independent charge; he held the post until 16 May 1996. [4]
1996-08-08 CBI registered a telecom equipment case (RC 3(A)/96/ACU-IV) under Section 120B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Sukh Ram and Runu Ghosh. [4]
1996-08-16 CBI searched Sukh Ram's residences. It recovered ₹2,45,28,844 from 12 Safdarjung Lane, Delhi and ₹1,13,51,520 from his house in Mandi. The Income Tax Department joined the search and seized cash. [2][3][5]
1996-08-27 CBI registered a separate disproportionate assets case (RC-IVA/96/ACU-IV) against Sukh Ram. [4]
1996-09-18 Sukh Ram was arrested in the disproportionate assets case and was in custody. [1]
1996-10-01 Delhi High Court directed that Sukh Ram be admitted to bail in the disproportionate assets case. [1]
1997-06-09 Charge sheet was filed against Sukh Ram in the disproportionate assets case. [2]
2009-02-20 A Delhi trial court convicted Sukh Ram under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the disproportionate assets case. [4]
2009-02-25 The same court sentenced Sukh Ram to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, with six months' simple imprisonment in default. [4][2]
2009-09-25 Delhi High Court noted that Sukh Ram's appeal (Crl. A. 287/2009) against the 2009 conviction had been admitted and was pending. [4]
2019-01-28 Delhi High Court in Sukh Ram v Directorate of Enforcement recorded that the CBI search on 16 August 1996 recovered ₹2,45,28,844 and documents, and that the Enforcement Directorate alleged Sukh Ram received ₹1,39,35,000 between March 1995 and 17 April 1995 without RBI permission. [5]
Urea import from Karsan, 1995: ₹133 crore paid, no urea came; eight convicted in 2018
In 1995 NFL agreed to buy 2 lakh tonnes of urea (a farm fertiliser) from a Turkish company, Karsan. It paid nearly the full price, about $38 million or ₹133 crore, in advance, and no urea came. The CBI, the central police agency, took up the case in 1996. In July 2018, 22 years later, a Delhi court convicted eight people, including two Karsan bosses, two NFL officials, the Prime Minister's relative and the minister's son. Only a small part of the money has been recovered.
Found guilty by a court
P.V. Narasimha Rao government; National Fertilizers Limited (public sector); relatives of the Prime Minister and the Fertilisers Minister
1996
Harm to the nation
Urea import from Karsan, 1995: ₹133 crore paid, no urea came; eight convicted in 2018
In 1995 NFL agreed to buy 2 lakh tonnes of urea (a farm fertiliser) from a Turkish company, Karsan. It paid nearly the full price, about $38 million or ₹133 crore, in advance, and no urea came. The CBI, the central police agency, took up the case in 1996. In July 2018, 22 years later, a Delhi court convicted eight people, including two Karsan bosses, two NFL officials, the Prime Minister's relative and the minister's son. Only a small part of the money has been recovered.
Found guilty by a court
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court held a trial and found the person guilty.
What happened
In 1995 NFL agreed to buy 2 lakh tonnes of urea (a farm fertiliser) from a Turkish company, Karsan. It paid nearly the full price, about $38 million or ₹133 crore, in advance, and no urea came. The CBI, the central police agency, took up the case in 1996. In July 2018, 22 years later, a Delhi court convicted eight people, including two Karsan bosses, two NFL officials, the Prime Minister's relative and the minister's son. Only a small part of the money has been recovered.
Who did it
National Fertilizers Limited (NFL), a government-owned company, made the deal. Its head, C.K. Ramakrishnan, and Executive Director D.S. Kanwar approved it; they were company officials, not party members. The government was the Congress government of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, with Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav as Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers (1994–96). The minister and the Prime Minister were not charged. The PM's relative B. Sanjeeva Rao and the minister's son Prakash Chandra Yadav, a member of the Bihar Legislative Council, were charged and convicted.
The evidence
The Minister of State for Fertilisers told the Lok Sabha in July 1996 that NFL's then head made the deal with one party without tenders, beyond his powers and without the Board. US$37.62 million was paid to Karsan's bank on 14 November 1995. No urea was supplied by the due date of 4 May 1996, and the insurance covered only sea risks, not non-delivery. [1]
The trial judgment records that Prakash Chandra Yadav is the son of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, “Minister of Chemicals & Fertilizers at the relevant time”. The CBI said he kept NFL's executive director informed and asked for US$2 lakh to be sent to a company. The judgment records that B. Sanjeeva Rao, a close relative of the Prime Minister, was accused of getting about ₹1.02 crore of the money. Both denied the charges. [4]
Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav was Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers from 1994 to 1996, the Lok Sabha recorded when he died. He was not an accused in the case. [3][4]
As reported by Orissa Post (PTI), the special CBI court gave the two Karsan executives six years in prison and a ₹100 crore penalty; NFL's C.K. Ramakrishnan and D.S. Kanwar three years and ₹6 lakh each; agent M. Sambasiva Rao and D. Mallesham Goud three years and ₹5 crore each; and Sanjeeva Rao and Prakash Chandra Yadav three years and ₹1 crore each. (Millennium Post reported Sanjeeva Rao's fine as ₹5 crore.) [5][7]
As reported by Millennium Post, P.V. Prabhakar Rao, the Prime Minister's son, was accused in the press of helping the deal but was not prosecuted; the CBI reportedly found nothing against him. [7]
The government told the Lok Sabha in 2007 that an international arbitration award of 3 December 1996 gave NFL about US$40.69 million, but only about ₹1.08 crore had been recovered; the rest had been moved to accounts in several countries. [2]
Where it stands today
As checked on 9 October 2026: eight accused stand convicted by the special CBI court in Delhi (judgment 9 July 2018, sentences 12 July 2018). We found no report of a High Court ruling on any appeal against these convictions. P.V. Narasimha Rao and Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav were never charged. A second, linked urea case, in which a Delhi court refused the CBI's closure report in April 2022, appears still pending; we found no later report on it.
What was done
NFL signed with Karsan without inviting other bids and without telling its Board, and paid in advance with insurance that did not cover non-delivery, as the government told Parliament in 1996. The money was sent on 14 November 1995 and moved to a bank in Geneva. The CBI said part of it came back to people in India through hawala (unofficial money transfer) channels.
What it meant for the country
A public company lost about ₹133 crore and recovered little of it. A court convicted eight people, including the relatives of the Prime Minister and the Fertilisers Minister, but only after 22 years.
NFL, a public company, paid about ₹133 crore and got no urea under the contract. [1][4]
By 2007 only about ₹1.08 crore had been recovered abroad, despite an arbitration award of about US$40.69 million. [2]
Eight people were convicted in 2018, 22 years after the case began. [4][5]
A second, linked case lay untouched by the CBI for about 22 years, which the court called “legally unacceptable”. [10]
Step by step
1995-07-27 NFL signs its first contract with Karsan for 2 lakh tonnes of urea at US$190 a tonne. A second contract is signed on 9 November 1995. [4]
1995-11-14 NFL sends US$37.62 million (about ₹133 crore) to Karsan in advance. [1][4]
1996-04-25 The government gives the case to the CBI. [1]
1996-05-19 The CBI registers the case and arrests C.K. Ramakrishnan and D.S. Kanwar. An arrest is not a finding of guilt. The government suspends Ramakrishnan on 24 May. [1][5]
1996-12-03 An International Chamber of Commerce tribunal rules for NFL, awarding about US$40.69 million. [2]
1997 The CBI files its charge sheet, an accusation that starts the trial. [5][6]
2000-06 As reported by The Tribune, a CBI team returns from Turkey and France without finding the money. Prakash Yadav and Sanjeeva Rao are among those on trial. [8]
2018-07-09 Special Judge Manoj Jain of the Tis Hazari courts, Delhi, gives judgment; eight accused are convicted. A ninth, A.E. Pinto, had died and the case against him ended in 2010. [4][5]
2018-07-12 The court sentences the convicted people to three to six years in prison and fines. [5][6]
2022-04 As reported by The Tribune and Free Press Journal, a Delhi court rejects a CBI request to close a second, linked urea case against Ramakrishnan, Kanwar, Sambasiva Rao and a US firm, filed 22 years after the CBI's last step. [9][10]
P.V. Narasimha Rao government; National Fertilizers Limited (public sector); relatives of the Prime Minister and the Fertilisers Minister
1997
Mixed
The inquiry into Rajiv Gandhi's assassination blamed LTTE links in Tamil Nadu, 1997–98
Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a suicide bomber in Tamil Nadu in 1991. The government set up an inquiry, the Jain Commission. The LTTE is a Sri Lankan Tamil armed group. Its reports, in 1997 and 1998, said the killing would not have been possible without the LTTE's deep links in Tamil Nadu, and criticised the DMK state government for letting the group work freely there. The government accepted the report, but no action was taken on its recommendations.
An official inquiry found fault
Jain Commission of Inquiry into the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi; Tamil Nadu police and Dravidian parties
1997
Mixed
The inquiry into Rajiv Gandhi's assassination blamed LTTE links in Tamil Nadu, 1997–98
Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a suicide bomber in Tamil Nadu in 1991. The government set up an inquiry, the Jain Commission. The LTTE is a Sri Lankan Tamil armed group. Its reports, in 1997 and 1998, said the killing would not have been possible without the LTTE's deep links in Tamil Nadu, and criticised the DMK state government for letting the group work freely there. The government accepted the report, but no action was taken on its recommendations.
An official inquiry found fault
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A government auditor or an inquiry commission examined this and reported what went wrong. This is a report, not a court verdict.
What happened
Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a suicide bomber in Tamil Nadu in 1991. The government set up an inquiry, the Jain Commission. The LTTE is a Sri Lankan Tamil armed group. Its reports, in 1997 and 1998, said the killing would not have been possible without the LTTE's deep links in Tamil Nadu, and criticised the DMK state government for letting the group work freely there. The government accepted the report, but no action was taken on its recommendations.
Who did it
Jain Commission of Inquiry into the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi; Tamil Nadu police and Dravidian parties
The evidence
Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a suicide bombing in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, on 21 May 1991. [2]
The Jain Commission submitted its interim report in August 1997 after several extensions. [2]
The final report was presented before the Parliament of India on 31 July 1998. [2]
The interim report stated that the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi 'would not have been possible, the way it has materialised, without the deep nexus of LTTE operatives with the Tamils in Tamil Nadu'. [3]
The commission report criticised that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government in Tamil Nadu allowed the LTTE to freely operate in Tamil Nadu in the late 1980s despite their criminal activities. [2]
Where it stands today
The interim and final reports were submitted and accepted; no action was taken on the recommendations. No further proceedings are recorded in the sources.
What was done
The Jain Commission of Inquiry, constituted to inquire into the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, submitted an interim report in August 1997 and a final report presented before Parliament on 31 July 1998. The commission found that the assassination would not have been possible without a deep nexus of LTTE operatives with Tamils in Tamil Nadu, and criticised the DMK government for allowing the LTTE to operate freely in Tamil Nadu in the late 1980s. The Government of India accepted the report but took no action on the commission's recommendations.
What it meant for the country
The commission's findings were accepted but not acted upon, and the interim report brought down the union government, leaving the recommendations unimplemented.
The interim report, which accused the DMK of having a role in the assassination, brought down the union government of I. (Gujral). [2]
Though the report was later accepted, no action was taken on the recommendations of the commission. [2]
Step by step
1991-05-21 Rajiv Gandhi, former prime minister of India, was assassinated by a suicide bombing in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. [2]
1997-08 The Jain Commission of Inquiry submitted its interim report, after several extensions. [2]
1997-11-20 The Rajya Sabha debated the Interim Report of the Jain Commission of Inquiry relating to the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi and the Memorandum of Action Taken thereon. [5]
1998-07-31 The final report of the Jain Commission was presented before the Parliament of India. [2]
Jain Commission of Inquiry into the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi; Tamil Nadu police and Dravidian parties
2005
Iraq oil-for-food report, 2005: minister removed, inquiry faulted him and cleared the party, no court verdict
Under the UN oil-for-food programme, Iraq sold oil and was meant to spend the money on food and medicine. In October 2005 a UN-appointed inquiry led by Paul Volcker said Iraq had used oil deals to reward friends, and its lists named Natwar Singh and the Congress party as “non-contractual beneficiaries” (people who gained from an oil deal without signing it). Natwar Singh lost his ministry and then left the Cabinet. An Indian inquiry under Justice R.S. Pathak later found he had used his position to help his son's friends and relatives get oil contracts, but found no proof that he made money himself. It found no evidence against the Congress party. No criminal case or court verdict followed.
An official inquiry found fault
K. Natwar Singh (External Affairs Minister, Congress); his son Jagat Singh; the Congress party
2005
Iraq oil-for-food report, 2005: minister removed, inquiry faulted him and cleared the party, no court verdict
Under the UN oil-for-food programme, Iraq sold oil and was meant to spend the money on food and medicine. In October 2005 a UN-appointed inquiry led by Paul Volcker said Iraq had used oil deals to reward friends, and its lists named Natwar Singh and the Congress party as “non-contractual beneficiaries” (people who gained from an oil deal without signing it). Natwar Singh lost his ministry and then left the Cabinet. An Indian inquiry under Justice R.S. Pathak later found he had used his position to help his son's friends and relatives get oil contracts, but found no proof that he made money himself. It found no evidence against the Congress party. No criminal case or court verdict followed.
An official inquiry found fault
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A government auditor or an inquiry commission examined this and reported what went wrong. This is a report, not a court verdict.
What happened
Under the UN oil-for-food programme, Iraq sold oil and was meant to spend the money on food and medicine. In October 2005 a UN-appointed inquiry led by Paul Volcker said Iraq had used oil deals to reward friends, and its lists named Natwar Singh and the Congress party as “non-contractual beneficiaries” (people who gained from an oil deal without signing it). Natwar Singh lost his ministry and then left the Cabinet. An Indian inquiry under Justice R.S. Pathak later found he had used his position to help his son's friends and relatives get oil contracts, but found no proof that he made money himself. It found no evidence against the Congress party. No criminal case or court verdict followed.
Who did it
K. Natwar Singh of the Congress was External Affairs Minister in the Congress-led UPA government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when a UN-appointed inquiry named him and the Congress party in October 2005. The acts examined took place in 2001, when the Congress was in opposition and Natwar Singh headed its foreign affairs cell. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh removed him from the ministry and his government set up the inquiry under former Chief Justice R.S. Pathak. Finance Minister P. Chidambaram (Congress) placed the inquiry's report in Parliament.
The evidence
In the Lok Sabha on 28 November 2005, Leader of the Opposition L.K. Advani (BJP) said the Volcker Committee's final report of 27 October 2005 named Natwar Singh and the Congress party, and about 130 Indian companies, as non-contractual beneficiaries. The government said the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the agency that enforces foreign exchange law, had been asked to check for breaches of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). [1]
On 2 December 2005 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the Lok Sabha the names were “unverified references”, that Justice Pathak would examine two contracts, and that the ED was also investigating. He said “no one who is guilty will go unpunished.” [2]
The Pathak report, as reported by The Tribune, said Natwar Singh's role in getting the contracts “had fructified”, but “there is no material to show that Mr Natwar Singh derived any financial or other personal benefit from the contracts.” [10]
The same report, as reported by The Tribune, found “no evidence that the Congress party was involved and that it derived any benefit at all from the Contract”, and said naming the party for contract M/10/57 was “not justified at all.” [10]
The ED's complaint under FEMA alleged that Natwar Singh and Jagat Singh dealt in about US$8.98 lakh linked to two Iraqi oil contracts without Reserve Bank of India permission. This is an allegation in a civil penalty case, not a criminal charge or a finding. [7][8]
The Supreme Court on 5 October 2010 dismissed appeals by Natwar Singh and Jagat Singh seeking more ED documents, and told the ED's adjudicating officer to decide the complaint quickly. This ruling was about procedure, not about guilt. [8][7]
Where it stands today
As checked on 9 October 2026: the Pathak inquiry's 2006 finding is the only official finding. It faults Natwar Singh and Jagat Singh for using their position, finds no proof of personal gain by Natwar Singh, and clears the Congress party. There was no criminal case and no conviction. The ED's FEMA penalty case was sent back for a quick decision by the Supreme Court in October 2010; we found no public record of a final ED order or penalty. Natwar Singh died on 10 August 2024.
What was done
The Pathak inquiry found that Natwar Singh and his son Jagat Singh, then a Youth Congress general secretary, introduced relatives and friends to Iraqi officials to help them obtain oil contracts. It said Natwar Singh's role in “influencing and facilitating” the contracts had worked, so he could be treated as a beneficiary of one contract, but there was “no material” that he gained money or personal benefit. The government sent the report to the Enforcement Directorate and the tax boards to act “as may appear to them warranted under the law.”
What it meant for the country
An Indian inquiry upheld part of the UN finding against Natwar Singh and rejected it against the Congress party. No court has ruled on whether any law was broken, and the ED case result is not on the public record we found.
A sitting External Affairs Minister lost his ministry within two weeks of the report and left the Cabinet a month later. [3][4]
India's own inquiry found that Natwar Singh used his standing to help his son's friends and relatives get Iraqi oil contracts, but found no proof that he made money. [10]
The inquiry found no evidence against the Congress party, so the UN report's mention of the party was not upheld in India. [10]
The ED's civil case under FEMA spent years in the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court on questions of procedure. We found no public record of a final order. [6][7][8]
Step by step
2005-10-27 The UN-appointed Independent Inquiry Committee led by Paul Volcker releases its final report. Its tables name Natwar Singh and the Congress party as non-contractual beneficiaries. [1][9]
2005-11-07 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh takes the External Affairs ministry from Natwar Singh, who stays on as Minister without Portfolio. The government orders an inquiry by former Chief Justice R.S. Pathak. [3][9]
2005-12-02 The Prime Minister tells the Lok Sabha the names are unverified and that both the Pathak inquiry and the ED are at work. [2]
2005-12-07 Natwar Singh leaves the Cabinet. He announced his resignation on 6 December, saying he did not want to be the reason Parliament was stalled. [4][11]
2006-08-03 Justice Pathak hands his report to the Prime Minister. [5]
2006-08-07 The Pathak report and the government's Action Taken Report are placed in Parliament. The government accepts the findings and sends the report to the ED and the tax boards. [5][10]
2006-08 The Congress suspends Natwar Singh from the party, as reported by The Tribune. [12]
2008-03-28 The Delhi High Court dismisses Natwar Singh's appeals against the way the ED's FEMA case was being run, and sends the parties back to the adjudicating officer. [6]
2010-10-05 The Supreme Court dismisses the appeals of Natwar Singh and Jagat Singh with costs and asks for an early decision of the FEMA complaint. [7][8]
2024-08-10 Natwar Singh dies at 93, as reported by Business Standard. [13]
K. Natwar Singh (External Affairs Minister, Congress); his son Jagat Singh; the Congress party
2005
Benefit to the nation
Right to Information Act, 2005
The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a law that gives citizens the right to ask government bodies for records and documents they hold. It requires every public authority to appoint information officers to answer requests, and sets up the Central Information Commission to hear appeals when information is refused. The law stands in force across India, and the Commission has used it to order officers to supply information within fixed times.
A law or decision by the government
Right to Information law
2005
Benefit to the nation
Right to Information Act, 2005
The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a law that gives citizens the right to ask government bodies for records and documents they hold. It requires every public authority to appoint information officers to answer requests, and sets up the Central Information Commission to hear appeals when information is refused. The law stands in force across India, and the Commission has used it to order officers to supply information within fixed times.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a law that gives citizens the right to ask government bodies for records and documents they hold. It requires every public authority to appoint information officers to answer requests, and sets up the Central Information Commission to hear appeals when information is refused. The law stands in force across India, and the Commission has used it to order officers to supply information within fixed times.
Who did it
Right to Information law
The evidence
The Act is called The Right to Information Act, 2005 and extends to the whole of India. [3]
"Information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in electronic form. [4][5]
"Public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution, by law made by Parliament or a State Legislature, or by notification or order of the appropriate Government, and includes bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed and non-government organisations substantially financed by government funds. [4]
"Right to information" includes inspection of work, documents, records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies; taking certified samples; and obtaining information in electronic form. [4]
Every public authority shall designate Central or State Public Information Officers within 100 days of enactment in all administrative units. [1]
Where it stands today
The Act stands in force. The Central Information Commission decisions cited are concluded orders; no appeal is shown in the sources.
What was done
Parliament passed the Right to Information Act, 2005, which gives citizens a statutory right to inspect records, take notes and certified copies, and obtain information in electronic form from public authorities. The Act requires every public authority to designate Central or State Public Information Officers within 100 days to deal with requests. The Central Information Commission has interpreted the Act as giving access to existing records held in material form, not answers to questions or interpretations of law, and has ordered officers to supply information within fixed times.
What it meant for the country
The Act gave citizens a statutory right to inspect and obtain copies of records held by public authorities, and the Central Information Commission has enforced this right by ordering officers to supply information within fixed times.
Citizens gained a statutory right to information including inspection of work, documents and records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies; taking certified samples; and obtaining information in electronic form. [4]
Every public authority is required to designate Central or State Public Information Officers within 100 days of enactment to provide information to requesters. [1]
The Central Information Commission directed a Chief Commissioner to furnish a clear reply within 15 days, failing which penal action would be initiated, after finding "complete negligence and laxity" in dealing with RTI applications. [7]
The Central Information Commission directed a Central Public Information Officer to provide information for 2010-2013 or affirm on affidavit that it had been weeded out or was not traceable. [8]
The Central Information Commission held that the Act provides access to information held in material form, not answers to questions or interpretation of rules, so requesters cannot use it to demand legal interpretations. [10]
Step by step
2005 The Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) was enacted, extending to the whole of India. [3][11]
2010-02-23 The Central Information Commission in Shri Rajiv Gupta vs CIC held that the RTI Act provides access to information held in material form, not answers to questions or interpretation of rules, and upheld the Central Public Information Officer's decision. [10]
2019 Act 34 of 2019 omitted the words "except the State of Jammu and Kashmir" from section 1(2) of the Act. [3]
2019-04-24 The Central Information Commission in Rattan Deep vs Chief Commissioner Central Excise found "complete negligence and laxity" in the public authority and directed the Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Customs, Thiruvananthapuram Zone to appoint a responsible officer to furnish a clear reply within 15 days, failing which penal action would be initiated. [7]
2019-11-26 The Central Information Commission in R K Jain vs Department of Commerce directed the Central Public Information Officer to give a revised reply providing information for 2010-2013 and remaining partial information for 2014-2016, or affirm on affidavit that the information had been weeded out or was not traceable. [8]
2023-01-17 The Central Information Commission in Ashutosh Gautam vs CIC observed that the Central Public Information Officer is only a communicator of information based on records held in the office and cannot be expected to do research; the appellant had sought unrelated information in one application. [9]
The Antrix–Devas satellite deal of 2005 was cancelled; the court said Devas was set up to cheat
In January 2005 Antrix, the business arm of the space agency ISRO, signed a deal to lease satellite airwaves to a private company, Devas Multimedia. In February 2011 the central government cancelled the deal. A company tribunal later ordered Devas to be shut down. In January 2022 the Supreme Court agreed, saying the company had been formed for a fraudulent purpose and run unlawfully.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
UPA government; ISRO / Antrix
2005
The Antrix–Devas satellite deal of 2005 was cancelled; the court said Devas was set up to cheat
In January 2005 Antrix, the business arm of the space agency ISRO, signed a deal to lease satellite airwaves to a private company, Devas Multimedia. In February 2011 the central government cancelled the deal. A company tribunal later ordered Devas to be shut down. In January 2022 the Supreme Court agreed, saying the company had been formed for a fraudulent purpose and run unlawfully.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
In January 2005 Antrix, the business arm of the space agency ISRO, signed a deal to lease satellite airwaves to a private company, Devas Multimedia. In February 2011 the central government cancelled the deal. A company tribunal later ordered Devas to be shut down. In January 2022 the Supreme Court agreed, saying the company had been formed for a fraudulent purpose and run unlawfully.
Who did it
UPA government; ISRO / Antrix
The evidence
The agreement was entered into on 28 January 2005 between Antrix Corporation Limited and Devas Multimedia Private Limited, India. [1][3][6]
On 17 February 2011 the Union Cabinet Committee on Security resolved to deny the S-band orbital slot to Antrix for any commercial activities and to direct annulment of the agreement. [4][6]
The termination letter of 25 February 2011 invoked the force majeure clause, not fraud. [1]
The NCLT ordered winding up of Devas on 25 May 2021, and the NCLAT upheld it on 8 September 2021. [2][3]
The Supreme Court on 17 January 2022 upheld the winding up, holding that Devas was a company formed for fraudulent purposes and its affairs conducted fraudulently and unlawfully. [2][3][5][7]
Where it stands today
The domestic winding-up proceedings concluded with the Supreme Court's judgment of 17 January 2022, which upheld the NCLT order of 25 May 2021 and the NCLAT order of 8 September 2021. No pending appeal in these proceedings is recorded in the documents available. The international arbitration awards and the Union's position on them are outside the documents provided here.
What was done
The Union Cabinet Committee on Security decided on 17 February 2011 to deny the S-band orbital slot to Antrix for any commercial activities and to direct annulment of the agreement; Antrix then terminated the agreement on 25 February 2011 under the force majeure clause. The National Company Law Tribunal ordered Devas Multimedia wound up on 25 May 2021, the NCLAT upheld that on 8 September 2021, and the Supreme Court upheld the winding-up on 17 January 2022.
What it meant for the country
The record establishes the annulment of the agreement and the winding-up of Devas after judicial findings of fraud, but it does not quantify any loss, compensation or other consequence for the country.
The S-band orbital slot was denied to Antrix for any commercial activities and the 2005 agreement was annulled and terminated, so the satellite capacity arrangement did not proceed. [4][6][1]
Devas Multimedia was ordered to be wound up, with the Supreme Court finding on 17 January 2022 that it was a company formed for fraudulent purposes and that its activities had been conducted fraudulently and unlawfully. [3][5]
Step by step
2005-01-28 Antrix Corporation Limited and Devas Multimedia Private Limited, India, entered into the S-band satellite capacity agreement. [1][3][6]
2011-02-17 The Union Cabinet Committee on Security decided to deny the orbital slot in S-band to Antrix for any commercial activities and to direct annulment of the agreement dated 28 January 2005. [4][6]
2011-02-23 The Cabinet Committee on Security decision was communicated to Antrix by letter dated 23 February 2011. [4]
2011-02-25 Antrix issued a letter of termination of the agreement dated 28 January 2005; the termination invoked the force majeure clause, not fraud. [1]
2021-05-25 The National Company Law Tribunal ordered the winding up of Devas Multimedia Private Limited. [2][3]
2021-09-08 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal upheld the NCLT's winding-up order. [2][3]
2022-01-17 The Supreme Court (Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Hemant Gupta), in Civil Appeal Nos. 5766 and 5906 of 2021, upheld the winding-up, finding that Devas was a company formed for fraudulent purposes and that its activities had been conducted in a fraudulent and unlawful manner. [2][3][5][7]
The Supreme Court said dissolving the Bihar assembly in 2005 was against the Constitution
In March 2005 Bihar was put under President's Rule, which means the central government runs the state directly. On 23 May 2005, after two reports from the Governor, the state's elected assembly was dissolved. The Supreme Court later held that this dissolution was against the Constitution.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Bihar Legislative Assembly dissolution
2005
Harm to the nation
The Supreme Court said dissolving the Bihar assembly in 2005 was against the Constitution
In March 2005 Bihar was put under President's Rule, which means the central government runs the state directly. On 23 May 2005, after two reports from the Governor, the state's elected assembly was dissolved. The Supreme Court later held that this dissolution was against the Constitution.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
In March 2005 Bihar was put under President's Rule, which means the central government runs the state directly. On 23 May 2005, after two reports from the Governor, the state's elected assembly was dissolved. The Supreme Court later held that this dissolution was against the Constitution.
Who did it
Bihar Legislative Assembly dissolution
The evidence
President's Rule under Article 356(1) was imposed on 7 March 2005. [2]
The Presidential proclamation dissolving the Bihar Legislative Assembly was issued on 23 May 2005. [3]
The proclamation was issued pursuant to two reports sent in by the Governor. [2]
The Supreme Court, by majority opinion, ordered that the 23 May 2005 proclamation dissolving the Bihar Legislative Assembly is unconstitutional. [3]
Where it stands today
Concluded: the Supreme Court declared the proclamation unconstitutional; no further proceedings are indicated in the sources.
What was done
The President, acting on two reports by the Governor, issued the 23 May 2005 proclamation dissolving the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The Supreme Court, by majority, declared that proclamation unconstitutional.
What it meant for the country
The Supreme Court declared the President's 23 May 2005 dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly unconstitutional, meaning the State's Assembly was dissolved by an invalid proclamation.
The Bihar Legislative Assembly was dissolved by a proclamation that the Supreme Court held unconstitutional, curtailing the existence of the State's Legislative Assembly. [3]
Step by step
2005-03-07 President's Rule under Article 356(1) was imposed on Bihar. [2]
2005-05-23 A Presidential proclamation dissolved the Bihar Legislative Assembly. [3]
2005-10-07 The Supreme Court, as per majority opinion, ordered that the Proclamation dated 23 May 2005 dissolving the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bihar is unconstitutional. [3]
2006-01-24 The Supreme Court judgment records that the Presidential proclamation dissolving the Bihar State Legislative Assembly was issued pursuant to two reports sent in by the Governor. [2]
Office of profit disqualification and the 2006 amendment
Members of Parliament cannot hold an office of profit under the government, but Parliament can declare certain offices exempt. In 2006, after the Election Commission and the President disqualified Jaya Bachchan from the Rajya Sabha for holding such an office, Parliament passed a law to add more offices to the exempt list, including the chairperson of the National Advisory Council. The Supreme Court upheld Bachchan's disqualification, and the 2006 amendment stands.
A law or decision by the government
Members of Parliament holding offices of profit
2006
Mixed
Office of profit disqualification and the 2006 amendment
Members of Parliament cannot hold an office of profit under the government, but Parliament can declare certain offices exempt. In 2006, after the Election Commission and the President disqualified Jaya Bachchan from the Rajya Sabha for holding such an office, Parliament passed a law to add more offices to the exempt list, including the chairperson of the National Advisory Council. The Supreme Court upheld Bachchan's disqualification, and the 2006 amendment stands.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Members of Parliament cannot hold an office of profit under the government, but Parliament can declare certain offices exempt. In 2006, after the Election Commission and the President disqualified Jaya Bachchan from the Rajya Sabha for holding such an office, Parliament passed a law to add more offices to the exempt list, including the chairperson of the National Advisory Council. The Supreme Court upheld Bachchan's disqualification, and the 2006 amendment stands.
Who did it
Members of Parliament holding offices of profit
The evidence
The Election Commission's opinion dated 2 March 2006 found that Jaya Bachchan held an office of profit under the Government of Uttar Pradesh and that Section 3 of the 1959 Act did not exempt it. [7]
The President's order dated 16 March 2006 disqualified Jaya Bachchan from the Rajya Sabha from 14 July 2004. [7]
The Supreme Court held that an office of profit is one capable of yielding pecuniary gain, whether or not the holder actually receives the money. [7]
The Supreme Court dismissed Jaya Bachchan's writ petition on 8 May 2006. [7]
The Lok Sabha passed the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006 on 16 May 2006. [2]
Where it stands today
Jaya Bachchan's disqualification concluded with the Supreme Court's dismissal of her petition on 8 May 2006; no appeal is indicated. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006 stands as Act 31 of 2006.
What was done
The Election Commission opined on 2 March 2006 that Jaya Bachchan held an office of profit; the President disqualified her on 16 March 2006; the Supreme Court dismissed her challenge on 8 May 2006. Parliament passed the amendment Bill in May 2006, passed it again in July 2006, and it became Act 31 of 2006 on 18 August 2006, adding the National Advisory Council chairperson to the exempt list.
What it meant for the country
One MP lost her Rajya Sabha seat after the Supreme Court upheld her disqualification, while Parliament changed the law to exempt the National Advisory Council chairperson and other offices from disqualification.
Jaya Bachchan was disqualified from the Rajya Sabha from 14 July 2004, and the Supreme Court dismissed her challenge, so she lost her seat. [7]
The 2006 amendment added the office of Chairperson of the National Advisory Council to the list of offices that do not disqualify an MP; the Lok Sabha debate records that Sonia Gandhi held that post. [3][1]
The amendment expanded the list of exempt offices under the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, changing the scope of disqualification for MPs. [3]
Step by step
2004-07-14 Jaya Bachchan was appointed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh as Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council; the President later held her disqualified from the Rajya Sabha from this date. [7]
2006-03-02 The Election Commission gave its opinion that Jaya Bachchan held an office of profit under the Government of Uttar Pradesh and that Section 3 of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 did not exempt that office. [7]
2006-03-16 The President, acting on the Election Commission's opinion, ordered that Jaya Bachchan stood disqualified from being a member of the Rajya Sabha from 14 July 2004. [7]
2006-05-08 The Supreme Court dismissed Jaya Bachchan's writ petition challenging the disqualification, holding that the office was capable of yielding profit and was not exempt. [7]
2006-05-16 The Lok Sabha passed the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006. [2]
2006-07-27 The Rajya Sabha passed the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006 again. [1]
2006-07-31 The Lok Sabha passed the Bill again; the motion for consideration was adopted and the Bill was passed. [1]
2006-08-18 The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006 (Act 31 of 2006) amended the 1959 Act, adding clause (ad) for the office of Chairperson of the National Advisory Council constituted by the Government of India in the Cabinet Secretariat vide Order No. 631/2/1/2004-Cab., dated 31 May 2004. [3]
The government set up a committee under former judge Rajinder Sachar to study how Muslims were doing in education, jobs, and living conditions. The committee found they were behind on many measures, and the government then announced steps such as scholarships, credit targets, and a 4.5% share of reserved government jobs and college seats for minorities within the existing 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes. The report was tabled in Parliament, and court challenges to the scholarship schemes were dismissed.
A law or decision by the government
Socio-economic status of Muslims
2006
Mixed
Sachar Committee report and follow-up
The government set up a committee under former judge Rajinder Sachar to study how Muslims were doing in education, jobs, and living conditions. The committee found they were behind on many measures, and the government then announced steps such as scholarships, credit targets, and a 4.5% share of reserved government jobs and college seats for minorities within the existing 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes. The report was tabled in Parliament, and court challenges to the scholarship schemes were dismissed.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The government set up a committee under former judge Rajinder Sachar to study how Muslims were doing in education, jobs, and living conditions. The committee found they were behind on many measures, and the government then announced steps such as scholarships, credit targets, and a 4.5% share of reserved government jobs and college seats for minorities within the existing 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes. The report was tabled in Parliament, and court challenges to the scholarship schemes were dismissed.
Who did it
Socio-economic status of Muslims
The evidence
The Sachar Committee was constituted on 9 March 2005 and submitted its report on 17 November 2006. [1][3]
The report was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 30 November 2006. [1]
The Committee found the literacy rate among Muslims was 59.1%, below the national average of 64.8%. [1]
It found 25% of Muslim children aged 6-14 had either never attended school or had dropped out. [1]
It found about 38% of Muslims in urban areas and 27% in rural areas lived below the poverty level. [1]
Where it stands today
The report and follow-up decisions were placed before Parliament. The Bombay High Court dismissed challenges to the minority scholarship schemes on 6 June 2011, and the Gujarat High Court had dismissed a similar challenge on 20 March 2009. No pending proceedings are identified in the sources.
What was done
The Union Government constituted the committee, received its report, tabled it in Parliament, and announced follow-up decisions including civic improvements in 338 towns, a target of 15% priority sector lending to minorities, educational measures, and a 4.5% sub-quota within the OBC reservation. The Kerala Government formed a committee and later extended scholarships to Latin Catholics and Converted Christians on the lines given to Muslim girl students.
What it meant for the country
The record shows both documented deprivation of Muslims and government measures to address it: the Sachar Committee found Muslim literacy at 59.1% against a national average of 64.8%, while the government later created a 4.5% sub-quota within the OBC reservation and upheld scholarship schemes in
The Sachar Committee found the literacy rate among Muslims was 59.1%, below the national average of 64.8%, and that 25% of Muslim children aged 6-14 had either never attended school or had dropped out, documenting an education gap. [1]
The Committee found about 38% of Muslims in urban areas and 27% in rural areas lived below the poverty level, and about 40% of large villages with a substantial Muslim concentration had no medical facilities, showing deprivation in basic services. [1]
The Government decided to step up priority sector lending to minorities to 15% over three years and improve civic amenities in 338 towns with a substantial minority population, aiming to address economic and infrastructure gaps. [1]
The Government created a 4.5% sub-quota for centrally notified minorities within the 27% OBC reservation in government jobs and central educational institutions, based on NCRLM and Sachar recommendations. [2]
The Bombay High Court upheld merit-cum-means scholarship schemes for minority students, so those schemes continued. [3]
Step by step
2005-03-09 The Prime Minister's Office constituted a High Level Committee under Justice Rajinder Sachar to prepare a report on the social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community of India. [1][3][4]
2006-06 The Prime Minister's New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities was announced. [3]
2006-11-17 The Sachar Committee submitted its report to the Prime Minister. [1][3][4]
2006-11-30 The report was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. [1]
2007-05-10 The National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities (NCRLM) submitted its report to the Government. [2]
2007-08-31 The Minister of Minority Affairs laid a statement in the Lok Sabha on follow-up action. The Government decided to improve civic amenities and economic opportunities in 338 identified towns, set up an inter-ministerial group for skill and credit, step up priority sector lending to minorities to 15% over three years, and adopt educational measures including more Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas and a revised Madarsa Modernization Programme. [1]
2007-11 The Post Matric Scholarship Scheme was launched. [4]
2008-02-21 The Kerala Government's 11-member committee headed by Paloly Muhammed Kutty submitted its report on implementing the Sachar Committee recommendations in Kerala. [4]
2009-03-20 The Gujarat High Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the minority scholarship schemes. [3]
2009-12-18 The NCRLM report was placed in both Houses of Parliament. [2]
2011-06-06 The Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the merit-cum-means scholarship schemes for minority community students, holding they were part of the Prime Minister's New 15 Point Programme and the follow-up to the Sachar Committee report. [3]
2011-12-28 The Minister of Law and Justice and Minister of Minority Affairs made a statement in the Lok Sabha on the creation of a 4.5% sub-quota for centrally notified minority communities within the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes in government jobs and central educational institutions. [2]
2021-05-28 The Kerala High Court recorded that the State Government had implemented special programmes and packages for the weakest sections of minority communities, including scholarships to Latin Catholics and Converted Christians on the lines given to Muslim girl students, based on the Paloli Committee report. [4]
2G phone licences, 2008: cancelled by the Supreme Court, all accused acquitted, appeal pending
In January 2008 the telecom ministry gave out 122 new mobile phone licences with 2G airwaves (spectrum). It charged a price fixed in 2001 and did not hold an auction. The government's auditor said the country may have lost a very large sum. The Supreme Court cancelled all 122 licences in 2012. But in 2017 the criminal court found every accused person not guilty, and that result still stands while an appeal is heard.
Found not guilty by a court
UPA government; A. Raja (Telecom Minister, DMK)
2008
Mixed
2G phone licences, 2008: cancelled by the Supreme Court, all accused acquitted, appeal pending
In January 2008 the telecom ministry gave out 122 new mobile phone licences with 2G airwaves (spectrum). It charged a price fixed in 2001 and did not hold an auction. The government's auditor said the country may have lost a very large sum. The Supreme Court cancelled all 122 licences in 2012. But in 2017 the criminal court found every accused person not guilty, and that result still stands while an appeal is heard.
Found not guilty by a court
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court held a trial and cleared the accused. They are not guilty in law.
What happened
In January 2008 the telecom ministry gave out 122 new mobile phone licences with 2G airwaves (spectrum). It charged a price fixed in 2001 and did not hold an auction. The government's auditor said the country may have lost a very large sum. The Supreme Court cancelled all 122 licences in 2012. But in 2017 the criminal court found every accused person not guilty, and that result still stands while an appeal is heard.
Who did it
A. Raja of the DMK party, Minister of Communications and IT in the Congress-led UPA government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, took the decisions on the licences in 2007–08. His ministry's Department of Telecommunications issued them.
The evidence
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the government's auditor, placed in Parliament on 16 November 2010, said 122 licences were issued in 2008 at 2001 prices, and that 85 of them went to companies that did not meet the ministry's own conditions. [1][2]
The same report estimated a “presumptive loss” (an estimate of money the government could have earned, not money counted as missing) of between ₹57,666 crore and ₹1,76,645 crore, that is about 1.76 lakh crore rupees at the top end. [1]
The Supreme Court's judgment of 2 February 2012 said moving the cut-off date was “totally arbitrary”, like changing the rules after the game has begun. It cancelled the 122 licences and ordered that airwaves be given by auction. [3][4]
The trial court's judgment of 21 December 2017, as reported by The News Minute, said: “The prosecution has miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused.” The judge said he had waited about seven years for evidence, “but all in vain”. [8]
The Delhi High Court's order of 22 March 2024, as reported by Business Standard and Bar and Bench, allowed the CBI's appeal to be heard in full. This is permission to argue the appeal, not a finding of guilt. [9][10]
Where it stands today
Two results stand side by side. The licences: the Supreme Court's 2012 judgment cancelling them is final. The criminal cases: A. Raja, Kanimozhi and all the other accused were acquitted on 21 December 2017, and the acquittals remain in force. The CBI's appeal was admitted by the Delhi High Court on 22 March 2024. We found no report of a High Court decision on the appeal up to 30 September 2026. Nobody has been convicted.
What was done
The ministry moved the last date for applications back from 1 October 2007 to 25 September 2007, after applications were already in. It issued the letters for licences on a single day, 10 January 2008, at ₹1,658 crore for an all-India licence, the 2001 price. The Supreme Court held this process illegal and cancelled the licences. The criminal court held that no crime was proved against anyone.
What it meant for the country
The Supreme Court found the way the licences were given illegal and cancelled all 122. The criminal court found no crime proved against anyone. The size of any loss is still disputed.
122 licences were cancelled by the Supreme Court, so the companies that held them lost them. [3][4]
The CAG estimated a presumptive loss of between ₹57,666 crore and ₹1,76,645 crore. The parliamentary committee, as reported, rejected the highest figure. No court has fixed a loss figure. [1][12]
A. Raja was arrested in February 2011. All the accused were acquitted nearly seven years later, in December 2017. [6][8]
The CBI's appeal took six years, from March 2018 to March 2024, just to be admitted for hearing. [9][10]
Step by step
2008-01-10 The Department of Telecommunications issues letters for new 2G licences on a single day, at 2001 prices, without an auction. [1][3]
2010-11-14 A. Raja resigns as telecom minister. [5]
2010-11-16 The CAG report on the 2G licences is placed in Parliament. [2]
2011-02-02 The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the central police agency, arrests A. Raja and two former officials. [6]
2011-04-02 The CBI files its first charge sheet, naming A. Raja and eight others. A charge sheet is an accusation, not a finding of guilt. [7]
2012-02-02 The Supreme Court cancels the 122 licences and orders that airwaves be sold by auction. [3][4]
2013-12-09 A committee of MPs (the Joint Parliamentary Committee) places its report in the Lok Sabha. As reported, it calls the ₹1.76 lakh crore loss figure “ill-conceived”. Opposition members record their disagreement. [12][13]
2017-12-21 The special CBI court acquits A. Raja, Kanimozhi and all the other accused, in the CBI cases and in the linked money-laundering case. [8][7]
2018-03-20 The CBI appeals against the acquittals in the Delhi High Court. [9]
2024-03-22 The Delhi High Court agrees to hear the CBI's appeal in full. The acquittals stay in force unless the High Court overturns them. [9][10]
Cash shown in the Lok Sabha during the 2008 trust vote: source never traced, most accused discharged, no Congress member charged
During the debate on the confidence vote, three BJP MPs took bundles of cash out of bags in the Lok Sabha and said it was a bribe to stop them voting against the government. The government won the vote. A committee of MPs could not find who sent the money and cleared Amar Singh and Ahmed Patel. Three years later, after the Supreme Court criticised a slow police inquiry, the Delhi Police charged Amar Singh, the three BJP MPs and others, but no Congress member. In 2013 a Delhi court let off all but one accused, Sanjeev Saxena, who was sent for trial. No one has been convicted, as far as the record we found shows.
Accused in court, not yet proven
UPA government's confidence vote, July 2008; accused from the Samajwadi Party and BJP; no Congress member charged
2008
Cash shown in the Lok Sabha during the 2008 trust vote: source never traced, most accused discharged, no Congress member charged
During the debate on the confidence vote, three BJP MPs took bundles of cash out of bags in the Lok Sabha and said it was a bribe to stop them voting against the government. The government won the vote. A committee of MPs could not find who sent the money and cleared Amar Singh and Ahmed Patel. Three years later, after the Supreme Court criticised a slow police inquiry, the Delhi Police charged Amar Singh, the three BJP MPs and others, but no Congress member. In 2013 a Delhi court let off all but one accused, Sanjeev Saxena, who was sent for trial. No one has been convicted, as far as the record we found shows.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators have filed charges in court. The trial is not over, so nobody has been found guilty.
What happened
During the debate on the confidence vote, three BJP MPs took bundles of cash out of bags in the Lok Sabha and said it was a bribe to stop them voting against the government. The government won the vote. A committee of MPs could not find who sent the money and cleared Amar Singh and Ahmed Patel. Three years later, after the Supreme Court criticised a slow police inquiry, the Delhi Police charged Amar Singh, the three BJP MPs and others, but no Congress member. In 2013 a Delhi court let off all but one accused, Sanjeev Saxena, who was sent for trial. No one has been convicted, as far as the record we found shows.
Who did it
The Congress-led UPA government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sought a vote of confidence on 22 July 2008, after the Left parties withdrew support over the India–US nuclear deal. Three BJP MPs said leaders of the Congress and the Samajwadi Party tried to bribe them. The people later accused by the Delhi Police were Amar Singh (Samajwadi Party general secretary in 2008, later expelled), his alleged aide Sanjeev Saxena, BJP MPs Faggan Singh Kulaste, Mahavir Bhagora and Ashok Argal, Sudheendra Kulkarni (an aide to BJP leader L.K. Advani) and Sohail Hindustani (described as a BJP activist). Samajwadi Party MP Rewati Raman Singh was made an accused by the trial court, but the Delhi High Court quashed that order. Congress leader Ahmed Patel was named by the MPs but was not charged.
The evidence
The Speaker's statement in the Lok Sabha records that on 22 July 2008 BJP MPs Ashok Argal, Faggan Singh Kulaste and Mahavir Bhagora “took out bundles of currency notes” from two bags and said they had been “sought to be bribed by the leaders of the Congress and the Samajwadi Party”. [1]
The committee, as recorded by the Speaker, said the material on record did not conclusively prove the money was sent by the people accused of sending it, found the evidence of three people involved “unconvincing”, and asked that investigating agencies look into their role. The Speaker sent the matter to the Home Minister. [1]
The committee report, as reported by The Tribune, found “not an iota of evidence” against Ahmed Patel of the Congress, “no direct evidence” against Amar Singh, and asked for more inquiry into Sudheendra Kulkarni, Sohail Hindustani and Sanjeev Saxena. [4]
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha on 5 August 2011, as reported by Deccan Herald, called the Delhi Police inquiry “hopeless and half-hearted” and gave the police three weeks to finish. The case had been brought by former Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh. [6]
On 18 March 2011, after a US embassy cable published by WikiLeaks claimed a Congress aide had shown cash for buying votes, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the Lok Sabha the government “cannot confirm the veracity, contents or even the existence” of the cables and said “no one from the Congress Party or the Government indulged in any unlawful act during the trust vote”. Opposition MPs replied that the committee had also asked for a further probe. [2][3][5]
Special Judge Narottam Kaushal on 22 November 2013, as reported by IANS, discharged Amar Singh, the three BJP MPs, Sudheendra Kulkarni and Sohail Hindustani. The court said the MPs had acted to expose vote-buying, and that the money trail could not be traced. It framed charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act only against Sanjeev Saxena. A discharge means the court found too little to put them on trial; it is not a conviction. [11]
Where it stands today
As checked on 9 October 2026: Amar Singh (then Samajwadi Party), BJP MPs Faggan Singh Kulaste, Mahavir Bhagora and Ashok Argal, Sudheendra Kulkarni and Sohail Hindustani were discharged by a Delhi special court on 22 November 2013. Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act were framed against Sanjeev Saxena; we found no public report of a verdict in his trial. In February 2014 the Delhi government said it would challenge the discharge order; we found no report of the result. No Congress member was charged, and nobody has been convicted on the record we found.
What was done
The three MPs placed the cash on the Table of the House on 22 July 2008. The Speaker set up a seven-member committee, headed by V. Kishore Chandra Deo, on 26 July 2008. It found the material did not prove who sent the money and asked investigating agencies to look at three people. The Delhi Police filed a charge sheet in August 2011, after the Supreme Court said its inquiry was half-hearted. In November 2013 a special court discharged (released without trial) six accused and framed charges against one under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
What it meant for the country
Cash was shown in Parliament during a confidence vote, but no inquiry or court found out who sent it. The police case ended mostly in discharges, and no Congress member was charged.
The source of the cash shown in Parliament was never traced. The court said efforts to follow the money had failed. [1][11]
The Supreme Court found that the police did little for about three years, until the court stepped in. [6]
Amar Singh and others spent time in jail in 2011. In 2013 all but one were discharged without trial. [8][9][11]
No Congress member was charged by the police. The committee found no evidence against Ahmed Patel, and the Prime Minister denied any unlawful act by the Congress. [4][7][2]
Step by step
2008-07-22 During the confidence vote debate, three BJP MPs show bundles of cash in the Lok Sabha. The government wins the vote by 275 to 256. [1][2]
2008-07-26 The Speaker appoints a seven-member committee of MPs to inquire. [1]
2008-12-15 The committee's report is placed in the Lok Sabha. It clears Amar Singh and Ahmed Patel and asks for further inquiry into three others. [1][4]
2011-03-17 The Hindu publishes a US embassy cable from WikiLeaks claiming a Congress aide showed a US diplomat cash meant for MPs. Satish Sharma of the Congress says he had no such aide. [5]
2011-03-18 The Prime Minister tells the Lok Sabha the government cannot confirm the cables and rejects the bribery claim. [2][3]
2011-08-05 The Supreme Court criticises the Delhi Police for a slow inquiry and orders it finished in three weeks. [6]
2011-08-24 The Delhi Police file a charge sheet against Amar Singh, Sanjeev Saxena, two former BJP MPs, Sudheendra Kulkarni and Sohail Hindustani. A charge sheet is an accusation, not a finding of guilt. [7]
2011-09-06 Amar Singh, by then expelled from the Samajwadi Party, is arrested and sent to judicial custody by a Delhi court. [8]
2013-11-22 A special court discharges six accused and sends only Sanjeev Saxena for trial. Rewati Raman Singh of the Samajwadi Party was no longer an accused by then, because the Delhi High Court had quashed the order making him one. [11][10]
2014-02-05 The Delhi government decides to challenge the special court's order in the High Court, as reported by Deccan Herald. [12]
UPA government's confidence vote, July 2008; accused from the Samajwadi Party and BJP; no Congress member charged
2008
Robert Vadra and the Gurugram land deal: bought for ₹7.5 crore, sold for ₹58 crore; accused in court, not proven
In 2008 Vadra's company bought about 3.5 acres of land in Shikohpur village, Gurugram, for ₹7.5 crore. The Haryana government gave permission to build a commercial project on it. In 2012 the company sold the land to the builder DLF for ₹58 crore. The ED says this was money laundering and filed a charge sheet in July 2025. Vadra denies any wrongdoing. No court has found him guilty.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Robert Vadra; Skylight Hospitality; Haryana government of Bhupinder Singh Hooda
2008
Robert Vadra and the Gurugram land deal: bought for ₹7.5 crore, sold for ₹58 crore; accused in court, not proven
In 2008 Vadra's company bought about 3.5 acres of land in Shikohpur village, Gurugram, for ₹7.5 crore. The Haryana government gave permission to build a commercial project on it. In 2012 the company sold the land to the builder DLF for ₹58 crore. The ED says this was money laundering and filed a charge sheet in July 2025. Vadra denies any wrongdoing. No court has found him guilty.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators have filed charges in court. The trial is not over, so nobody has been found guilty.
What happened
In 2008 Vadra's company bought about 3.5 acres of land in Shikohpur village, Gurugram, for ₹7.5 crore. The Haryana government gave permission to build a commercial project on it. In 2012 the company sold the land to the builder DLF for ₹58 crore. The ED says this was money laundering and filed a charge sheet in July 2025. Vadra denies any wrongdoing. No court has found him guilty.
Who did it
Robert Vadra, a businessman and the husband of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, and his company Skylight Hospitality are accused by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the central agency that investigates money laundering. The permission to build on the land was given by the Haryana government when Bhupinder Singh Hooda (Congress) was Chief Minister.
The evidence
The government auditor's (CAG) report placed before the Haryana Assembly in March 2015 said the company got “undue favours” and made a profit of ₹50.5 crore, and that the state did not collect any share of it (as reported by India.com, which printed the text). [3]
As reported by PTI, the ED said on 17 July 2025 that it had filed a charge sheet against 11 people and companies, and had frozen 43 properties worth ₹37.64 crore the day before. [4]
As reported by All India Radio News, the ED told the court that Vadra received ₹58 crore as money from a crime: ₹53 crore through Skylight Hospitality and ₹5 crore through another company. [5]
In Vadra's favour: the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 10 January 2019, set aside the report of the Justice Dhingra inquiry commission into these land licences, because Mr Hooda had not been given the notice the law requires. The state cannot act on that report (as reported by The Tribune). [1][2]
Also in his favour: as reported by The Tribune, the Haryana government told the High Court in April 2023 that a local revenue officer had found no rule was broken when the land passed from Skylight to DLF. [12]
Where it stands today
As of the last report we found (10 July 2026), the ED's case is before the Rouse Avenue court in Delhi. The charge sheet has been accepted, Vadra is on bail, and the trial has not started. No court has found him guilty. Vadra says he has done nothing wrong and calls the cases a political vendetta against him and his family. Two other ED matters are separate and also undecided: a case linked to the UK-based arms consultant Sanjay Bhandari, and a land case in Bikaner, Rajasthan. The CAG and ED material here is as reported by the press; the documents themselves were not available to us.
What was done
The record shows the land was bought for ₹7.5 crore and sold for ₹58 crore. A Delhi court accepted the ED's charge sheet on 15 April 2026 and gave Vadra bail on 16 May 2026. The ED alleges the ₹58 crore is money from a crime; this has not yet been tested in a trial. A charge sheet is an accusation, not a finding of guilt.
What it meant for the country
An audit report criticised the permission and the ED alleges laundering of ₹58 crore, but no court has decided whether any law was broken.
The auditor said the company made a ₹50.5 crore profit and the state collected no share of it for the public treasury. [3]
43 properties said to be worth ₹37.64 crore are frozen by the ED, so they cannot be sold while the case goes on. [4]
The matter has run for more than 13 years, from the 2012 order on the land records to a court case that had not reached trial by mid-2026. [7][11]
Step by step
2008-02 Skylight Hospitality buys about 3.5 acres in Shikohpur for ₹7.5 crore. [6][16]
2012 The land is sold to DLF for ₹58 crore. In October, IAS officer Ashok Khemka cancels the change of the owner's name in the land records. [7]
2015-03-25 The CAG audit report is placed in the Haryana Assembly. In May the new BJP state government sets up the Justice Dhingra Commission. [3][16]
2018-09-01 Haryana Police register a case (an FIR) in Gurugram for cheating, forgery and conspiracy. [13]
2019-01-10 The High Court says the state was entitled to set up the Dhingra Commission, but sets aside its report. [1][2]
2023-04 Haryana tells the High Court that a revenue officer found no rule was broken in the Skylight–DLF transfer. The police inquiry continues. [12][13]
2025-07-17 After questioning Vadra in April 2025, the ED files its charge sheet against 11 accused. [4][8]
2026-04-15 A special court in Delhi formally accepts the charge sheet and calls Vadra and eight others to appear. One accused is not called, for lack of material. [7][8]
2026-05-16 Vadra appears in court and is given bail. Two days later he withdraws his Delhi High Court challenge to the court's summons. [9][10]
2026-07-10 The ED tells the court that the role of DLF is still being investigated. The trial has not begun. [11]
Robert Vadra; Skylight Hospitality; Haryana government of Bhupinder Singh Hooda
2010
Mixed
3G airwaves: a 2010 auction that raised ₹67,719 crore, and a fight over roaming deals the phone companies won
There is no court case called the “3G scam”. In 2010 the government sold 3G airwaves by open auction and raised about ₹67,719 crore. Later, Airtel, Vodafone and Idea made deals to offer 3G in areas where they had not bought airwaves, by using each other's networks. The telecom department said this broke the licence rules and fined them ₹1,200 crore. A tribunal cancelled the fines in 2014. Separately, the government's auditor estimated that such roaming deals cost the government money.
An official inquiry found fault
UPA government; Department of Telecommunications; Airtel, Vodafone, Idea
2010
Mixed
3G airwaves: a 2010 auction that raised ₹67,719 crore, and a fight over roaming deals the phone companies won
There is no court case called the “3G scam”. In 2010 the government sold 3G airwaves by open auction and raised about ₹67,719 crore. Later, Airtel, Vodafone and Idea made deals to offer 3G in areas where they had not bought airwaves, by using each other's networks. The telecom department said this broke the licence rules and fined them ₹1,200 crore. A tribunal cancelled the fines in 2014. Separately, the government's auditor estimated that such roaming deals cost the government money.
An official inquiry found fault
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A government auditor or an inquiry commission examined this and reported what went wrong. This is a report, not a court verdict.
What happened
There is no court case called the “3G scam”. In 2010 the government sold 3G airwaves by open auction and raised about ₹67,719 crore. Later, Airtel, Vodafone and Idea made deals to offer 3G in areas where they had not bought airwaves, by using each other's networks. The telecom department said this broke the licence rules and fined them ₹1,200 crore. A tribunal cancelled the fines in 2014. Separately, the government's auditor estimated that such roaming deals cost the government money.
Who did it
The 2010 auction was run by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) under the Congress-led UPA government. The same department, under the same government, ordered three phone companies to stop their 3G roaming deals in December 2011 and fined them in 2013.
The evidence
The DoT's auction result document says the 3G auction ran for 34 days in 22 service areas and that all 71 blocks were sold. [1]
As reported by Medianama and set out in an IIT Bombay research paper, the 3G auction raised ₹67,718.95 crore. With the separate broadband auction the total was about ₹1.06 lakh crore, that is 1,06,000 crore rupees. [2][3]
As reported by The Tribune and Medianama, the tribunal ruled on 29 April 2014 that the 3G roaming deals did not break the licence, and cancelled the whole ₹1,200 crore in fines. [5][4]
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the government's auditor, No. 20 of 2015, said a June 2008 change to licences that allowed such roaming was “irregular”, and estimated losses of ₹8,210 crore in one-time charges and ₹1,394.53 crore in yearly charges. This is an audit estimate, not a court finding. [8]
Where it stands today
No person or company has been charged with a crime, and no court has found wrongdoing, in any 3G matter we found. The 2010 auction stands. On 3G roaming, the tribunal's ruling of 29 April 2014 in favour of Airtel, Vodafone and Idea is the last decision we found. The DoT's appeal reached the Supreme Court in December 2014; we found no report of a final Supreme Court decision. The CAG's 2015 findings remain audit findings.
What was done
The government auctioned 3G airwaves from 9 April to 19 May 2010, and every block was sold. The DoT told three companies on 23 December 2011 to stop their 3G roaming deals, and in 2013 fined them ₹1,200 crore in total. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), a special court for telecom disputes, ruled on 29 April 2014 that the deals did not break the licence, and cancelled the fines.
What it meant for the country
The auction raised a large sum and no court found anything wrong with it. The roaming dispute ended in the companies' favour at the tribunal, while the auditor separately estimated a loss.
The 2010 auctions of 3G and broadband airwaves brought the government about ₹1.06 lakh crore. [2][3]
Fines of ₹1,200 crore on Airtel, Vodafone and Idea were cancelled by the tribunal. [4][5]
The CAG estimated that roaming deals inside service areas cost the government ₹8,210 crore in one-time charges and ₹1,394.53 crore in yearly charges. These are audit estimates. [8]
Step by step
2008-06-12 The DoT changes licence terms to allow roaming deals between companies inside the same service area. The CAG later calls this change irregular. [8]
2010-05-19 The 3G auction ends after 34 days. It raises ₹67,718.95 crore, including payments by the state-owned BSNL and MTNL. [1][2]
2011-12-23 The DoT tells Airtel, Vodafone and Idea to end their 3G roaming deals. [4][9]
2012-07-03 The tribunal's two members disagree, so the question stays open. [4]
2013-03-15 The DoT fines Airtel ₹350 crore. On 9 April it fines Vodafone ₹550 crore and Idea ₹300 crore. [4]
2014-04-29 The tribunal rules for the companies: the roaming deals are allowed and all ₹1,200 crore in fines is cancelled. [4][5]
2014-12-08 As reported, the Supreme Court agrees to hear the DoT's appeal against the tribunal's ruling. [6][7]
UPA government; Department of Telecommunications; Airtel, Vodafone, Idea
2010
Harm to the nation
Adarsh housing society, Mumbai: the charges against former Chief Minister Ashok Chavan were dropped
Adarsh is a tower of flats in Mumbai. The CBI looked into claims that the land for it had been given out wrongly, and charged 12 people, including former Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan. To put a former minister on trial the Governor's permission is needed. The court dropped the charges against Chavan because that permission was missing. It was given in 2016, but the Bombay High Court cancelled it in December 2017. He has been neither convicted nor cleared after a trial.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Ashok Chavan
2010
Harm to the nation
Adarsh housing society, Mumbai: the charges against former Chief Minister Ashok Chavan were dropped
Adarsh is a tower of flats in Mumbai. The CBI looked into claims that the land for it had been given out wrongly, and charged 12 people, including former Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan. To put a former minister on trial the Governor's permission is needed. The court dropped the charges against Chavan because that permission was missing. It was given in 2016, but the Bombay High Court cancelled it in December 2017. He has been neither convicted nor cleared after a trial.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
Adarsh is a tower of flats in Mumbai. The CBI looked into claims that the land for it had been given out wrongly, and charged 12 people, including former Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan. To put a former minister on trial the Governor's permission is needed. The court dropped the charges against Chavan because that permission was missing. It was given in 2016, but the Bombay High Court cancelled it in December 2017. He has been neither convicted nor cleared after a trial.
Who did it
Ashok Chavan
The evidence
CBI registered a Preliminary Enquiry on 15.11.2010 and a regular case on 29.1.2011 against 13 accused. [9]
CBI filed a charge sheet against 12 accused; Ashok Chavan was accused No.11. [1]
The Special Judge allowed the CBI's application Exh.46 to delete Chavan's name from the charge sheet and close the case against him for lack of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [1]
The Bombay High Court dismissed the CBI's revision against the dropping of charges on 19.11.2014. [1][4]
The Bombay High Court on 23.09.2017 upheld the trial court's order disallowing the CBI from deleting Chavan's name. [6]
Where it stands today
The Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, dropped the charges against Chavan; the Bombay High Court dismissed the CBI's revision on 19.11.2014 and quashed the Governor's sanction on 22.12.2017. No further proceedings against Chavan are identified in the sources.
What was done
The CBI registered a regular case on 29.1.2011 and charge-sheeted 12 accused, including Ashok Chavan as accused No.11. The Special Judge dropped the charges against Chavan for lack of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Bombay High Court dismissed the CBI's revision on 19.11.2014. After Governor Ch Vidyasagar Rao granted sanction in February 2016, Chavan challenged it, and the Bombay High Court quashed the sanction on 22 December 2017.
What it meant for the country
The record indicates harm: a judicial commission reported 22 benami transactions and no environmental clearances in the Adarsh society, and government land in Army possession was allegedly allotted to the society, while the prosecution of Ashok Chavan ended without a finding.
The Adarsh commission's report, as reported, revealed 22 benami transactions and that the society never sought environmental clearances. [12]
The Ministry of Environment directed demolition of the illegally constructed building in 2011 due to CRZ violations, but the Bombay High Court stayed the demolition. [11]
Government land admeasuring about 3758 sq.mtrs in Block-VI at Colaba, Mumbai, in possession of the Army and used as 'Khukri Park', was allegedly allotted to the society through a conspiracy. [1]
Ashok Chavan resigned as Chief Minister but has not been convicted. [11]
Step by step
2010-11-15 CBI registered a Preliminary Enquiry into alleged irregularities in the allotment of land to Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society, Mumbai. [9]
2011-01-29 CBI registered a regular case against 13 accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [9]
2013-12 The Adarsh commission submitted its final report; as reported, the report was tabled in the Maharashtra Assembly in December 2013 and revealed 22 benami transactions and that the society never sought environmental clearances. [7][12]
2014-11-19 The Bombay High Court dismissed the CBI's criminal revision application against the Special Judge's order dropping charges against Ashok Chavan for lack of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [1][4]
2016-02 Maharashtra Governor Ch Vidyasagar Rao granted sanction to the CBI to prosecute Ashok Chavan. [13]
2017-09-23 The Bombay High Court refused relief to Ashok Chavan and upheld the trial court's order disallowing the CBI from deleting his name from the Adarsh charge sheet. [6]
2017-12-22 The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the Governor's sanction granted to the CBI to prosecute Ashok Chavan. [13][14]
AgustaWestland VVIP helicopters, 2010: contract ended in 2014, charge sheets filed, trial not yet begun
In 2010 India agreed to buy 12 AW101 helicopters from AgustaWestland to fly the President, the Prime Minister and other top leaders (VVIPs). In 2012 Italian prosecutors began looking into claims that bribes were paid to win the deal. India asked the CBI, the central police agency, to investigate, and ended the contract on 1 January 2014. The government's auditor found many faults in how the helicopters were chosen. In Italy, two top company bosses were finally found not guilty in 2019. In India, the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have filed charge sheets, but as of October 2026 nobody has been convicted and the trial has not properly begun.
Accused in court, not yet proven
UPA government; Ministry of Defence under A.K. Antony (Congress); AgustaWestland VVIP helicopters
2010
Harm to the nation
AgustaWestland VVIP helicopters, 2010: contract ended in 2014, charge sheets filed, trial not yet begun
In 2010 India agreed to buy 12 AW101 helicopters from AgustaWestland to fly the President, the Prime Minister and other top leaders (VVIPs). In 2012 Italian prosecutors began looking into claims that bribes were paid to win the deal. India asked the CBI, the central police agency, to investigate, and ended the contract on 1 January 2014. The government's auditor found many faults in how the helicopters were chosen. In Italy, two top company bosses were finally found not guilty in 2019. In India, the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have filed charge sheets, but as of October 2026 nobody has been convicted and the trial has not properly begun.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators have filed charges in court. The trial is not over, so nobody has been found guilty.
What happened
In 2010 India agreed to buy 12 AW101 helicopters from AgustaWestland to fly the President, the Prime Minister and other top leaders (VVIPs). In 2012 Italian prosecutors began looking into claims that bribes were paid to win the deal. India asked the CBI, the central police agency, to investigate, and ended the contract on 1 January 2014. The government's auditor found many faults in how the helicopters were chosen. In Italy, two top company bosses were finally found not guilty in 2019. In India, the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have filed charge sheets, but as of October 2026 nobody has been convicted and the trial has not properly begun.
Who did it
The Ministry of Defence, headed by A.K. Antony of the Congress party, in the Congress-led UPA government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, signed the contract on 8 February 2010. The same ministry later sent the matter to the CBI and ended the contract. The accused named in the reports we cite are a former Air Force chief (S.P. Tyagi), his relatives, a lawyer, foreign middlemen such as Christian Michel (a British citizen), company officials and companies. None of them is a Congress office-holder.
The evidence
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the government's auditor (Report No. 10 of 2013, tabled on 13 August 2013), found that changing the requirements narrowed the field of sellers and lowered the height the helicopter had to reach, that it still ended with a single seller, and that trials were held abroad on stand-in helicopters. It said the process “poses serious questions on accountability and lack of transparency”. [1]
Defence Minister A.K. Antony told the Lok Sabha on 26 November 2012 that the contract for 12 helicopters (8 VVIP and 4 others) was signed on 8 February 2010 for about 556.262 million euros. He said the contract allowed India to cancel it and forfeit bank guarantees if middlemen or commissions were used. He said no formal inquiry had yet been ordered. [2]
The defence ministry complained to the CBI on 12 February 2013. The CBI registered a criminal case on 12 March 2013 against Air Chief Marshal (retd) S.P. Tyagi and 18 others, for cheating, conspiracy and offences under the anti-corruption law. A case is an accusation, not a finding of guilt. [3]
The CBI's charge sheet of 1 September 2017, as reported by Business Standard, accuses Tyagi of agreeing to lower the required flying height from 6,000 metres to 4,500 metres, which let AgustaWestland compete. This is the CBI's accusation. It has not been tested at trial. [8]
The ED, which investigates money laundering, registered a case and had attached property worth about ₹4.82 crore by May 2015. As reported by ANI, it filed its first complaint in court on 24 November 2014 and its 12th supplementary complaint on 21 November 2024, against 60 accused. In February 2025 charges had still not been framed against anyone. [4][13]
When the Supreme Court gave Christian Michel bail on 18 February 2025, as reported by LiveLaw, Justice Vikram Nath asked the CBI: “What about the trial? You don't even start the trial.” [10]
Where it stands today
Checked on 9 October 2026. In Italy, the two top company bosses were finally acquitted in May 2019. In India, nobody has been convicted. The CBI and the ED have filed charge sheets. As last reported (February 2025), charges had not been framed in the ED case. S.P. Tyagi is on bail. Christian Michel has bail in both the CBI and ED cases but is still in Tihar jail because he has not met the bail conditions. The Delhi High Court rejected his plea for release on 8 April 2026. The Supreme Court is hearing his appeal and listed it for 25 August 2026. We found no report of a decision up to 9 October 2026. The trial itself is still pending.
What was done
The defence ministry changed the helicopter requirements during the buying process, including lowering the height the helicopter had to be able to fly at. The CAG says this narrowed the number of companies that could compete and left only one seller. Trials were done abroad on similar helicopters, not the actual AW101. The contract worth about 556 million euros was signed in February 2010. After bribery claims surfaced in Italy, the ministry complained to the CBI in February 2013 and terminated the contract from 1 January 2014.
What it meant for the country
The Air Force did not get the helicopters it waited more than ten years for, and only part of the money paid was recovered through the guarantees. The criminal cases have run for over 13 years without a trial.
Only three of the 12 helicopters had arrived when the contract was ended. India had already paid about 45% of the price, and kept the three helicopters. [5]
An Italian court let India cash in up to 228 million euros of the company's bank guarantees. India had asked for 278 million euros. [6]
The CAG found that buying the helicopters took more than ten years, so the Air Force kept flying its older helicopters for longer. [1]
Christian Michel has been in custody since December 2018. He has bail in both cases but is still in jail, and his trial has not begun. [10][11]
Step by step
2010-02-08 The Ministry of Defence signs the contract with AgustaWestland for 12 helicopters. [2]
2013-03-12 The CBI registers a criminal case against S.P. Tyagi and 18 others, after a complaint from the defence ministry. [3]
2013-08-13 The CAG report on buying helicopters for VVIPs is tabled in Parliament. [1]
2014-01-01 The Ministry of Defence terminates the contract, saying the company broke the integrity pact (a no-bribes promise) and the agreement. [5]
2014-05 A court in Milan, Italy, allows India to encash (cash in) up to 228 million euros of AgustaWestland's bank guarantees, as reported by The Local. [6]
2016-12 The CBI arrests S.P. Tyagi on 9 December. A Delhi court gives him bail on 26 December, as reported. [8][9]
2017-09-01 The CBI files a charge sheet against Tyagi and nine others, including Christian Michel. A charge sheet is an accusation, not a finding of guilt. [8]
2018-12 Christian Michel is extradited from Dubai and arrested. [10]
2019-05-22 Italy's top court upholds the acquittal of former Finmeccanica chief Giuseppe Orsi and former AgustaWestland chief Bruno Spagnolini. A lower court had earlier sentenced them, but that was set aside in 2016. [7]
2025-02-18 The Supreme Court gives Michel bail in the CBI case. The Delhi High Court gives him bail in the ED case on 4 March 2025. He stays in jail because he has not met the bail conditions. [10][11]
2026-07 The Supreme Court, hearing Michel's plea that he has already been held too long, gives the government a last three weeks to reply and lists the case for 25 August 2026. [11][12]
UPA government; Ministry of Defence under A.K. Antony (Congress); AgustaWestland VVIP helicopters
2010
Commonwealth Games 2010: organising chief Suresh Kalmadi was arrested and charged
Delhi hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2010. The government's auditor examined how the Games were run and how the money was spent. The CBI arrested Suresh Kalmadi, who headed the organising committee, in a case about the contract for the timing and scoring system, and filed charges in court in May 2011. The government removed him from the committee. The documents we have do not show how the trial ended.
Accused in court, not yet proven
UPA government (2004–2014)
2010
Commonwealth Games 2010: organising chief Suresh Kalmadi was arrested and charged
Delhi hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2010. The government's auditor examined how the Games were run and how the money was spent. The CBI arrested Suresh Kalmadi, who headed the organising committee, in a case about the contract for the timing and scoring system, and filed charges in court in May 2011. The government removed him from the committee. The documents we have do not show how the trial ended.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators have filed charges in court. The trial is not over, so nobody has been found guilty.
What happened
Delhi hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2010. The government's auditor examined how the Games were run and how the money was spent. The CBI arrested Suresh Kalmadi, who headed the organising committee, in a case about the contract for the timing and scoring system, and filed charges in court in May 2011. The government removed him from the committee. The documents we have do not show how the trial ended.
Who did it
UPA government (2004–2014)
The evidence
Suresh Kalmadi was chairman of the Organising Committee for the 2010 Commonwealth Games and president of the Indian Olympic Association. [1][6]
The Comptroller and Auditor General issued Report No. 6 of 2011, Performance Audit of XIXth Commonwealth Games. [7]
The Games were held in Delhi from 3 to 14 October 2010; 4,336 athletes and 2,115 officials from 71 Commonwealth Games Associations participated, and India won 38 gold, 27 silver and 36 bronze medals. [7]
The CBI arrested Kalmadi in the Timing-Scoring-Result case; a court order records the arrest as 24 April 2011 and news reports state 25 April 2011. [8][2][4][6]
A court order records that the charge sheet was filed on 20 May 2011. [8]
Where it stands today
A charge sheet was filed on 20 May 2011; the provided pages do not state the court in which the case was pending or its final outcome. The CAG performance audit was issued as Report No. 6 of 2011.
What was done
The Comptroller and Auditor General issued Report No. 6 of 2011, a performance audit of the XIX Commonwealth Games. The Union government, through Minister of State Ajay Maken, removed Suresh Kalmadi and Lalit Bhanot from the Organising Committee, citing the CBI investigation and concerns expressed by the CBI. The CBI arrested Suresh Kalmadi and filed a charge sheet on 20 May 2011.
What it meant for the country
The documents record the removal of two Organising Committee office-holders and the arrest and charge-sheeting of Suresh Kalmadi, but they do not establish any loss, conviction or final outcome.
The Union government removed Suresh Kalmadi and Lalit Bhanot from the Organising Committee, citing the CBI investigation and concerns expressed by the CBI. [9]
Suresh Kalmadi was arrested and a charge sheet was filed against him on 20 May 2011. [8]
Step by step
2010-10-03 The XIX Commonwealth Games were held in Delhi from 3 to 14 October 2010; 4,336 athletes and 2,115 officials representing 71 Commonwealth Games Associations participated, and India finished second with 38 gold, 27 silver and 36 bronze medals. [7]
2011 The Comptroller and Auditor General issued Report No. 6 of 2011, Performance Audit of XIXth Commonwealth Games. [7]
2011-04-24 A court order records counsel's submission that Suresh Kalmadi was arrested on 24 April 2011; news reports state the CBI arrested him on 25 April 2011 in the Timing-Scoring-Result (TSR) case. [8][2][4][6]
2011-05-20 A court order records that the charge sheet was filed on 20 May 2011. [8]
2012-01-19 A court order in Suresh Kalmadi v CBI recorded the arrest date and charge sheet date. [8]
People in the Telangana region had long demanded a state separate from Andhra Pradesh. In 2010 the central government asked a committee under Justice B.N. Srikrishna to study the demand; it reported in December 2010. In 2014 Parliament passed the law that split Andhra Pradesh and created Telangana. Hyderabad was to be shared as capital for up to ten years, after which it would be Telangana's alone and Andhra Pradesh would build a new capital.
A law or decision by the government
Creation of Telangana
2010
How Telangana became a separate state, 2010–2014
People in the Telangana region had long demanded a state separate from Andhra Pradesh. In 2010 the central government asked a committee under Justice B.N. Srikrishna to study the demand; it reported in December 2010. In 2014 Parliament passed the law that split Andhra Pradesh and created Telangana. Hyderabad was to be shared as capital for up to ten years, after which it would be Telangana's alone and Andhra Pradesh would build a new capital.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
People in the Telangana region had long demanded a state separate from Andhra Pradesh. In 2010 the central government asked a committee under Justice B.N. Srikrishna to study the demand; it reported in December 2010. In 2014 Parliament passed the law that split Andhra Pradesh and created Telangana. Hyderabad was to be shared as capital for up to ten years, after which it would be Telangana's alone and Andhra Pradesh would build a new capital.
Who did it
Creation of Telangana
The evidence
The Government of India constituted the Srikrishna Committee in February 2010 under the chairmanship of Justice B. N. Srikrishna. [4]
The Committee submitted its report on 30 December 2010 to Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram. [1][4]
The Srikrishna Committee report ran to 461 pages, according to a summary of the report. [2]
The Committee examined both the demand for a separate State of Telangana and the demand for maintaining the present status of a united Andhra Pradesh. [2][4][7]
The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 provided that Hyderabad would be the common capital of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh for a period not exceeding ten years, after which Hyderabad would be the capital of Telangana and a new capital would be required for Andhra Pradesh. [6]
Where it stands today
The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 is in force. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which would name Amaravati as the capital, has been passed by the Lok Sabha; its final enactment status is not stated in the sources. No proceedings concluded with a finding against any person.
What was done
The Government of India constituted the Srikrishna Committee in February 2010, which examined the demand for Telangana and submitted its report on 30 December 2010 to the Union Home Minister. Parliament then enacted the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, bifurcating the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, with Hyderabad designated as the common capital for up to ten years, after which Hyderabad would belong to Telangana and Andhra Pradesh would require a new capital. In 2026, Parliament took up an amendment bill to name Amaravati as the capital of Andhra Pradesh.
What it meant for the country
The sources document a major institutional reorganisation—the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and the creation of Telangana—but provide no figures on deaths, displacement, costs, or rights affected, so the consequences for the country cannot be assessed from the record.
Telangana was created as a separate state through the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. [6]
The successor State of Andhra Pradesh was required to establish a new capital after a transition period during which Hyderabad served as the common capital for up to ten years. [6]
Step by step
2010-02 The Government of India constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Justice B. N. Srikrishna to hold discussions with all sections of people and political parties and groups in Andhra Pradesh and examine the situation with reference to the demand for a separate State of Telangana. [4]
2010-12-30 The Srikrishna Committee submitted its report to the Union Home Minister, Shri P. Chidambaram, on 30 December 2010. [1][4]
2014 Parliament enacted the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, to provide for the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The Act provided that Hyderabad would be the common capital of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh for a period not exceeding ten years, after which Hyderabad would be the capital of Telangana and there would be a new capital for the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. [6]
2026 The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was introduced in Parliament and passed by the Lok Sabha, proposing to amend section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, to name Amaravati as the new capital of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 2 June 2024. [5][6]
In 2011, after public protests, Parliament took up a Bill to create a national anti-corruption ombudsman called Lokpal and state bodies called Lokayuktas. The Lok Sabha debated and introduced the Bill in December 2011, and Parliament passed it in December 2013. The President signed it on 1 January 2014 and it came into force on 16 January 2014; a 2014 amendment bill was later referred to a parliamentary committee.
A law or decision by the government
Lokpal institution
2011
Benefit to the nation
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
In 2011, after public protests, Parliament took up a Bill to create a national anti-corruption ombudsman called Lokpal and state bodies called Lokayuktas. The Lok Sabha debated and introduced the Bill in December 2011, and Parliament passed it in December 2013. The President signed it on 1 January 2014 and it came into force on 16 January 2014; a 2014 amendment bill was later referred to a parliamentary committee.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 2011, after public protests, Parliament took up a Bill to create a national anti-corruption ombudsman called Lokpal and state bodies called Lokayuktas. The Lok Sabha debated and introduced the Bill in December 2011, and Parliament passed it in December 2013. The President signed it on 1 January 2014 and it came into force on 16 January 2014; a 2014 amendment bill was later referred to a parliamentary committee.
Who did it
Lokpal institution
The evidence
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 22 December 2011. [2]
The Bill provided for the establishment of a body of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for States to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries. [2]
The Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill was passed in both Houses of Parliament in December 2013. [4]
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act received the assent of the President on 1 January 2014 and came into effect on 16 January 2014. [4]
The Act sets up a mechanism in the form of an Ombudsman called Lokpal to inquire into allegations of corruption and acts of malversation against public servants mentioned in it. [4]
Where it stands today
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 is in force. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas and other related Law (Amendment) Bill, 2014 was referred to the Standing Committee on 22 December 2014; its later outcome is not in the sources.
What was done
Parliament passed the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill in December 2013, and the President signed it on 1 January 2014; the Act came into effect on 16 January 2014. It created a Lokpal for the Union and Lokayuktas for States to inquire into corruption allegations against certain public functionaries. In December 2014, the Lok Sabha referred an amendment bill to the Standing Committee.
What it meant for the country
The documents record that the law established a national Lokpal and state Lokayuktas to inquire into corruption allegations against public functionaries.
The Act set up a statutory anti-corruption ombudsman called Lokpal to inquire into allegations of corruption and acts of malversation against public servants mentioned in it. [4]
The 2014 amendment bill, which would have added the leader of the single largest opposition party to the Selection Committee when no Leader of Opposition was recognised, was referred to the Standing Committee, leaving that change not enacted as of the source date. [4]
Step by step
2011-08-17 The Lok Sabha discussed the Prime Minister's statement on setting up Lok Pal and events that took place on 16 August 2011 in New Delhi. [5]
2011-08-27 The Lok Sabha discussed the Finance Minister's statement on issues relating to setting up Lok Pal. [3]
2011-12-22 The Lok Sabha granted leave to introduce the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011, to provide for a Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for States to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries. [2]
2011-12-27 The Lok Sabha discussed the motion for consideration of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011, the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixteenth Amendment) Bill, 2011, and the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010. [1]
2013-12 The Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill was passed in both Houses of Parliament. [4]
2014-01-01 The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act received the assent of the President. [4]
2014-01-16 The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act came into effect. [4]
2014-12-22 The Lok Sabha discussed the motion for consideration of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas and other related Law (Amendment) Bill, 2014, and referred the Bill to the Standing Committee. [4]
After the December 2012 Delhi gang rape, the law on sexual crimes was made stricter
After the gang rape of a young woman in Delhi in December 2012, the government asked a committee under Justice J.S. Verma to suggest changes to the law. It reported within a month, on 23 January 2013, and asked for a wider definition of rape and tougher action on sexual assault. The government brought an emergency law in February 2013, and Parliament passed the new, stricter law in March 2013.
A law or decision by the government
Criminal law reform after December 2012 Delhi gang rape
2012
Benefit to the nation
After the December 2012 Delhi gang rape, the law on sexual crimes was made stricter
After the gang rape of a young woman in Delhi in December 2012, the government asked a committee under Justice J.S. Verma to suggest changes to the law. It reported within a month, on 23 January 2013, and asked for a wider definition of rape and tougher action on sexual assault. The government brought an emergency law in February 2013, and Parliament passed the new, stricter law in March 2013.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
After the gang rape of a young woman in Delhi in December 2012, the government asked a committee under Justice J.S. Verma to suggest changes to the law. It reported within a month, on 23 January 2013, and asked for a wider definition of rape and tougher action on sexual assault. The government brought an emergency law in February 2013, and Parliament passed the new, stricter law in March 2013.
Who did it
Criminal law reform after December 2012 Delhi gang rape
The evidence
The Justice Verma Committee was constituted on 23 December 2012 as a three-member body headed by former Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma. [12][13][17]
The committee submitted its report on 23 January 2013. [12][13][14]
The committee recommended removing the exception for marital rape and treating non-penetrative sexual contact as sexual assault. [12][13]
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 amended the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. [16]
Where it stands today
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on 19 and 21 March 2013 respectively. The earlier Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2012 was withdrawn on 19 March 2013.
What was done
The Justice Verma Committee recommended changes to sexual-offence laws. The Union government first introduced a Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill in 2012, withdrew it, and then Parliament passed the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
What it meant for the country
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 strengthened legal protection against sexual violence, as the Supreme Court noted it removed a sentencing escape clause and raised the minimum gang-rape sentence to twenty years.
The Supreme Court recorded in Shimbhu v State of Haryana that the 2013 Act deleted the proviso allowing a court to impose less than the minimum sentence for gang rape, and enhanced the minimum gang-rape sentence to twenty years, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the offender's natural life. [6]
The 2013 Bill amended the Indian Penal Code to include a provision headed 'Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment'. [16]
The 2013 Bill amended the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow a court, when recording the evidence of a woman below eighteen who is alleged to have been subjected to rape or another sexual offence, to take measures so that she is not confronted by the accused while still allowing cross-examination. [16]
The 2013 Bill amended the Indian Evidence Act by inserting section 53A and substituting section 114A, provisions dealing with evidence in sexual-offence cases. [16]
Step by step
2012-12-04 The government introduced the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2012 in the Lok Sabha and referred it to the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs. [15]
2012-12-23 A three-member committee headed by Justice J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice of India, was constituted to recommend amendments to criminal law for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for sexual assault against women. [12][13][17]
2013-01-23 The Justice Verma Committee submitted its report. The Ministry of Home Affairs recorded that the committee agreed to most provisions of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2012. [12][13][14]
2013-02-03 The President signed an anti-rape Ordinance based on some of the committee's recommendations. [17]
2013-03-19 The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2012 was withdrawn, and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013 was passed by the Lok Sabha. [15][17]
2013-03-21 The Rajya Sabha passed the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013. [17]
2013-04-04 The Ordinance lapsed after the Bill passed by Parliament replaced it. [17]
Criminal law reform after December 2012 Delhi gang rape
2012
National Herald / Young Indian case
National Herald was a newspaper published by Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), which had borrowed money from the Congress party. A private company, Young Indian, took over that debt and then acquired control of AJL and its assets, including the National Herald building in Delhi. Dr Subramanian Swamy filed a private criminal complaint alleging cheating and misappropriation against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others. The Delhi High Court in 2015 declined to quash the trial court's order allowing that complaint to proceed. Later, the Enforcement Directorate filed a money-laundering prosecution complaint; on 16 December 2025 a Special Judge declined to formally accept it and dismissed it. The Enforcement Directorate has challenged that dismissal in the Delhi High Court, which issued notices on 22 December 2025.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi (Young Indian / Associated Journals Ltd)
2012
National Herald / Young Indian case
National Herald was a newspaper published by Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), which had borrowed money from the Congress party. A private company, Young Indian, took over that debt and then acquired control of AJL and its assets, including the National Herald building in Delhi. Dr Subramanian Swamy filed a private criminal complaint alleging cheating and misappropriation against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others. The Delhi High Court in 2015 declined to quash the trial court's order allowing that complaint to proceed. Later, the Enforcement Directorate filed a money-laundering prosecution complaint; on 16 December 2025 a Special Judge declined to formally accept it and dismissed it. The Enforcement Directorate has challenged that dismissal in the Delhi High Court, which issued notices on 22 December 2025.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
National Herald was a newspaper published by Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), which had borrowed money from the Congress party. A private company, Young Indian, took over that debt and then acquired control of AJL and its assets, including the National Herald building in Delhi. Dr Subramanian Swamy filed a private criminal complaint alleging cheating and misappropriation against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others. The Delhi High Court in 2015 declined to quash the trial court's order allowing that complaint to proceed. Later, the Enforcement Directorate filed a money-laundering prosecution complaint; on 16 December 2025 a Special Judge declined to formally accept it and dismissed it. The Enforcement Directorate has challenged that dismissal in the Delhi High Court, which issued notices on 22 December 2025.
Who did it
Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi (Young Indian / Associated Journals Ltd)
The evidence
Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) published newspapers including National Herald; its printing was terminated in April 2008. [2]
In December 2010, Young Indian's board resolved to take over AJL's outstanding debt of ₹90 crores. [2]
AJL's board resolved to transfer its entire equity to Young Indian in lieu of the debt and a further ₹50 lakhs. [2]
Young Indian declared it would not publish any newspaper, including National Herald. [2]
The National Herald building in New Delhi was leased out commercially, and AJL was receiving ₹60 lakhs per month in rent for that property alone. [2]
Where it stands today
The Enforcement Directorate's revision petition (CRL.REV.P. 542/2025) against the Special Judge's order dated 16.12.2025 is pending before the Delhi High Court; notices were issued on 22.12.2025 and a reply was directed. The 2015 Delhi High Court challenge to the trial court's summoning order concluded with the High Court declining to quash it. The Special Judge's dismissal of the ED prosecution complaint is under challenge and not final.
What was done
The Delhi High Court, by Justice Sunil Gaur, on 7 December 2015 declined to quash the trial court's order and held that the complainant had established a prima facie case under sections 403, 406 and 420 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A Special Judge on 16 December 2025 declined to take cognizance of the money-laundering offence and dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's prosecution complaint. The Delhi High Court on 22 December 2025 issued notices to the respondents in the Enforcement Directorate's revision petition against that dismissal.
What it meant for the country
The cited documents record that the National Herald newspaper stopped publishing and its Delhi building was leased commercially, but they do not establish any quantified loss or a final finding of wrongdoing; the ED's money-laundering complaint was dismissed at the cognizance stage.
The National Herald newspaper had stopped printing in April 2008, and Young Indian later declared it would not publish any newspaper, so a newspaper publication ceased. [2]
The National Herald building in New Delhi was leased out commercially, with AJL receiving ₹60 lakhs per month in rent for that property alone. [2]
The Enforcement Directorate's money-laundering prosecution complaint was dismissed by the Special Judge on 16.12.2025, so no money-laundering charge proceeded at that stage. [1]
Step by step
2015-12-07 Delhi High Court (Justice Sunil Gaur) dismissed the petitions by Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and others seeking to quash the trial court's order; it held the complainant had established a prima facie case under sections 403, 406 and 420 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and that no case for quashing the complaint or the order was made out. [2]
2025-12-16 A Special Judge in Case No. 14/2025, 'Enforcement Directorate Vs. Sonia Gandhi & Anr.', declined to take cognizance of the offence of money laundering and dismissed the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate. [1]
2025-12-22 Delhi High Court in CRL.REV.P. 542/2025 found the matter required consideration and issued notices to the respondents, directing a reply to be filed before the next date. [1]
Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi (Young Indian / Associated Journals Ltd)
2012
Tatra trucks and the Army chief's bribe claim, 2012: one case sent for closure, one trial still running
For years the Army bought heavy Tatra trucks through BEML, a government-owned company. In March 2012 the Army chief, General V.K. Singh, said publicly that he had been offered a bribe of ₹14 crore to clear a batch of these trucks. Two CBI cases followed. In the case about how the trucks were bought, the CBI said it could not prove the claims and asked the court to close it in 2014. In the case about the bribe offer, the CBI charged Lt Gen (retd) Tejinder Singh. Charges were framed in 2019 and his trial was still going on at last report. Nobody has been convicted.
Accused in court, not yet proven
UPA government; Ministry of Defence under A.K. Antony (Congress); Tatra trucks bought through BEML
2012
Tatra trucks and the Army chief's bribe claim, 2012: one case sent for closure, one trial still running
For years the Army bought heavy Tatra trucks through BEML, a government-owned company. In March 2012 the Army chief, General V.K. Singh, said publicly that he had been offered a bribe of ₹14 crore to clear a batch of these trucks. Two CBI cases followed. In the case about how the trucks were bought, the CBI said it could not prove the claims and asked the court to close it in 2014. In the case about the bribe offer, the CBI charged Lt Gen (retd) Tejinder Singh. Charges were framed in 2019 and his trial was still going on at last report. Nobody has been convicted.
Accused in court, not yet proven
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story↓↑
Investigators have filed charges in court. The trial is not over, so nobody has been found guilty.
What happened
For years the Army bought heavy Tatra trucks through BEML, a government-owned company. In March 2012 the Army chief, General V.K. Singh, said publicly that he had been offered a bribe of ₹14 crore to clear a batch of these trucks. Two CBI cases followed. In the case about how the trucks were bought, the CBI said it could not prove the claims and asked the court to close it in 2014. In the case about the bribe offer, the CBI charged Lt Gen (retd) Tejinder Singh. Charges were framed in 2019 and his trial was still going on at last report. Nobody has been convicted.
Who did it
The government in power was the Congress-led UPA of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and the Defence Minister was A.K. Antony of the Congress. His ministry asked the CBI to investigate, and he later appeared in court as a prosecution witness. The person charged with offering a bribe is Lt Gen (retd) Tejinder Singh, a retired Army officer, not a Congress office-holder. The truck case named an owner of the supplier company, Tatra Sipox UK, and unnamed officials of BEML (a government-owned company) and the defence ministry. The documented record we found does not connect any Congress office-holder to wrongdoing. The only link is that the Congress-led UPA was in power.
The evidence
In a TV interview reported by The Tribune on 27 March 2012, General V.K. Singh said a lobbyist offered him ₹14 crore to clear about 600 vehicles. He said: “I could not take any action as it was an indirect offer.” The defence ministry asked the CBI to look into it. [1]
Defence Minister A.K. Antony told the Lok Sabha on 26 November 2012 that the CBI registered a case on 30 March 2012 under the anti-corruption law against an owner of the supplier company, unnamed defence ministry officials, unnamed BEML officials and unnamed people from Tatra Sipox UK. [2]
The ministry told the Lok Sabha on 11 March 2013 what the CBI was checking: that trucks were not bought from the original maker after 1997; that BEML had not learned to make them fully in India after 24 years; that switching payments from dollars to euros cost about ₹4 crore; and that late-delivery fines of about ₹9.27 crore were not charged. These were claims under investigation, not findings. [4]
The ministry told the Lok Sabha on 8 May 2015 that the CBI investigation “could not substantiate the levelled allegations” in the truck case, and that the CBI filed a closure report (a request to end the case) in the Patiala House court on 25 August 2014. [5]
In the bribe-offer case, the CBI charged Tejinder Singh under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (offering a bribe to a public servant). As reported, the CBI said the offer was made on behalf of businessman Ravi Rishi, and India TV reported there were no eyewitnesses. [6][9]
In court, as reported by ANI, A.K. Antony said on 28 September 2022 that V.K. Singh once told him about the offer and named Tejinder Singh, but never gave a written complaint. On 25 February 2023 V.K. Singh told the court he had recorded the 2010 meeting. [10][11]
Where it stands today
Checked on 9 October 2026. Truck-buying case: the CBI filed a closure report on 25 August 2014. As last reported (November 2019), the court had not accepted it. We found no later report of the court accepting or rejecting it. Bribe-offer case: Lt Gen (retd) Tejinder Singh has been on bail since 5 September 2014. Charges were framed in 2019 and the High Court refused to quash them in 2022. The last trial step we found was V.K. Singh's cross-examination in February 2023. We found no report of a verdict up to 9 October 2026. Nobody has been convicted, and no Congress office-holder has been accused in either case.
What was done
General V.K. Singh said Tejinder Singh offered him ₹14 crore at a meeting in his office on 22 September 2010, to clear the file for 1,676 high-mobility vehicles including Tatra trucks. He did not make a written complaint until March and April 2012. The defence ministry then asked the CBI to investigate both the bribe offer and the way Tatra trucks had been bought through BEML since the 1980s.
What it meant for the country
The inquiry held up truck orders and the DRDO expected delays. But the CBI could not prove the claims about how the trucks were bought, and no court has yet decided the bribe-offer case, so the overall effect is unclear.
While the CBI inquiry was pending, no orders were placed with Tatra Sipox. BEML was later allowed to buy parts from the new maker, Tatra Trucks a.s. of the Czech Republic. [5]
The DRDO, the defence research body, told the ministry that its systems built on Tatra vehicles were likely to be delayed. [3]
In the truck-buying case, the CBI could not prove the claims and asked to close the case. It did not ask for anyone to be tried in that case. [5]
The bribe-offer case was registered in October 2012. Charges were framed in 2019, and the trial was still hearing witnesses in 2023. [9][11]
Step by step
2010-09-22 The meeting in the Army chief's office where, according to the CBI, the bribe was offered. [9]
2012-03-26 General V.K. Singh speaks publicly about the bribe offer. The defence ministry asks the CBI to inquire. [1]
2012-03-30 The CBI registers a case about how Tatra trucks were bought through BEML. [2]
2012-10 The CBI registers a case against Tejinder Singh for offering a bribe. [9]
2014-08-25 The CBI files a closure report in the truck-buying case, saying it could not prove the claims. [5]
2014-09-01 A special CBI court, having taken note of the CBI charge sheet, sends Tejinder Singh to judicial custody. A charge sheet is an accusation, not a finding of guilt. [7]
2014-09-05 The Delhi High Court gives Tejinder Singh bail. [8]
2019-08-02 The trial court frames charges against Tejinder Singh. He pleads not guilty. [9][11]
2019-11-26 As reported by PGurus, the special court had still not accepted the 2014 closure report in the truck case and asked the CBI for more material. [12]
2022-07 The Delhi High Court rejects Tejinder Singh's challenge to the charges. It says the gaps he pointed to are for the trial to decide. [9]
2023-02-25 V.K. Singh is cross-examined as a witness. The trial continues. [11]
UPA government; Ministry of Defence under A.K. Antony (Congress); Tatra trucks bought through BEML
The pattern
Not one claim — the whole record
A speaker can be accurate in every sentence and still mislead: by what they leave out, by what their own party did on the same issue, by protesting one thing and defending its twin. These pieces set a speaker's statements against the official record as a whole. Every line is cited; each piece is labelled analysis, not a verdict.
Leaves something out· 1 Oct 2026
Congress’s 20 statements on SIR, Form 6 and ‘vote theft’ omit UPA-era revisions and 1980 New Delhi entry
In 20 statements, Congress attacks the Election Commission, Prime Minister and Home Minister over 13.3 crore deletions, Form 6 changes and ‘vote theft’, without mentioning UPA-era roll revisions or the 1980 New Delhi electoral roll entry of Sonia Gandhi.
Read the piece ↓
What was said
“He quietly altered the rules regarding ‘Form 6’. This is entirely illegal”
“Today, the whole country is worried about vote theft. They feel like the entire mandate is being stolen. Governments built on theft and robbery are in power.”
The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 set out Form 6 for claims, Form 7 for objections, and allow the roll to be revised either intensively or summarily as the Election Commission directs. [9][7]
Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 permits the Election Commission to direct ordinary revisions and, for recorded reasons, special revisions of any constituency. [8]
In Association For Democratic Reforms v ECI, the Supreme Court noted that the last intensive revision in Bihar was in 2003 and that for more than two decades the rolls were carried forward through summary revisions. [5]
The same Supreme Court judgment recorded that political parties across the spectrum have repeatedly raised serious concerns about the accuracy of rolls prepared through summary revision. [5]
What the comparison shows
The 20 statements concentrate on current SIR deletions, Form 6 changes and alleged ‘vote theft’, naming the Prime Minister, Home Minister and Chief Election Commissioner. None of the quoted remarks refers to electoral roll revisions or deletions carried out under earlier Congress-led UPA governments, nor to any 1980 New Delhi entry of Sonia Gandhi. The legal record shows that intensive and summary revisions, including special revisions, are long-standing statutory processes under the 1950 Act and 1960 Rules, and that the last Bihar intensive revision predates the present government. That absence leaves the reader to weigh whether the criticism is selective.
Each entry shows what was said, the official series it was compared with, and why the verdict was reached. A statement with no comparable official series stays unverified rather than being guessed at.
Topic
18 claims shown. Ordered by verdict, not by date.
Not true
2 claims
What they said is not true. The official record shows something else.
Not trueMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)29 Sept 2026
“History bears witness that ten years ago, this very Prime Minister devastated India’s economy with the decision of “demonetization.””
7.1 per cent
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said that ten years ago Prime Minister Narendra Modi devastated India's economy with the decision on demonetisation.
hindustantimes.com, 29 Sept 2026
What is actually true
7.1 per cent
real GDP growth average after demonetisation, Lok Sabha answer, Dec 2025
sansad.in
In a written answer in the Lok Sabha on 8 December 2025, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary said national accounts data from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation show real GDP growth averaged about 7.1 per cent in the immediate years after demonetisation, 2016-17 and 2017-18, and about 7.3 per cent between 2016-17 and 2024-25 excluding the pandemic-affected years. The Economic Survey 2016-17 Volume 2 said the real economy grew 7.1 per cent in 2016-17, down from 8 per cent the previous year, but called the economy relatively resilient to the liquidity shock.
A written Lok Sabha answer on 8 December 2025 said real GDP growth averaged about 7.1 per cent in 2016-17 and 2017-18, and about 7.3 per cent between 2016-17 and 2024-25 excluding pandemic-affected years, with India remaining one of the fastest-growing major economies after demonetisation. [7]
The Economic Survey 2016-17 Volume 2 noted the real economy grew 7.1 per cent in 2016-17 compared with 8 per cent the previous year, and said this suggested the economy was relatively resilient to the large liquidity shock of demonetisation. [8]
The Reserve Bank of India's annual report said the Indian economy demonstrated resilience in 2016-17, marked by moderate expansion, low inflation, and improvement in current account and fiscal deficits. [2]
The claim says demonetisation devastated the Indian economy. Official figures show the economy kept growing after demonetisation: real GDP growth averaged about 7.1 per cent in the next two years, and growth slowed from 8 per cent to 7.1 per cent in 2016-17. That is a slowdown, not devastation. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion that the economy was devastated.
Not trueMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)28 Sept 2026
“Rubber bullets were fired in the farmers’ movement, and 750 farmers lost their lives," he said, adding, "In Una, Gujarat, Dalits were beaten up, but justice hasn’t been served even now.”
The specific figure of 750 is not supported by the record; parliamentary debates and reporting cite around 700 or over 200 deaths, depending on the period. The claim that rubber bullets were fired is absent from all retrieved sources. Because the load-bearing number is contradicted by the available record and the ammunition claim is unverified, the statement is not accurate.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said that rubber bullets were fired in the farmers’ movement and 750 farmers lost their lives.
thehindu.com, 28 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Lok Sabha debate on 2 July 2024 records a member saying 'almost 700 farmers gave their lives' in the first farmers' agitation [7]. A February 2021 Lok Sabha debate put the figure at 'over 200 farmers' killed since the protests began [8]. The Conversation reported '700 lives lost' in the year of protests [5]. None of these sources mentions rubber bullets being fired.
A Lok Sabha debate on 2 July 2024 records a member saying 'almost 700 farmers gave their lives' in the first farmers' agitation, not 750. [7]
A February 2021 Lok Sabha debate said 'over 200 farmers have been killed since the inception of farmers' protests.' [8]
The Conversation reported '700 lives lost' in the farmers' protests, not 750. [5]
None of the retrieved sources mentions rubber bullets being fired during the farmers' movement. [5][7][8]
The specific figure of 750 is not supported by the record; parliamentary debates and reporting cite around 700 or over 200 deaths, depending on the period. The claim that rubber bullets were fired is absent from all retrieved sources. Because the load-bearing number is contradicted by the available record and the ammunition claim is unverified, the statement is not accurate.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proof
10 claims
A serious accusation with nothing behind it: no court, no inquiry and no official figure supports it, and the speaker gave none.
No proofJairam Ramesh (Indian National Congress)1 Oct 2026
“The chorus of voices against the capture of the electoral system is getting louder”
The claim rests on an allegation that the electoral system has been captured. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The Supreme Court judgment in the record examined the appointment process for election commissioners but did not uphold any finding of capture. Press reports of the Congress's own statement and opposition activities do not prove the allegation, so the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that the chorus of voices against the capture of the electoral system is getting louder.
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's judgment of 23 September 2026 in the challenge to the law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners examined how these officials are selected; it did not find that the electoral system has been captured [8]. Media reports of 1 October 2026 quote Jairam Ramesh and the Congress making the claim, and note the INDIA bloc's planned marches and former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat's criticism of the Special Intensive Revision, but these are press accounts, not official findings [2][6][7]. No official document in the record confirms that the electoral system has been captured or that opposition to such capture is growing.
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 146 of 2024 examined the law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners; it did not find that the electoral system has been captured. [8]
Media reports from 1 October 2026 quote Jairam Ramesh saying the chorus of voices against the capture of the electoral system is getting louder, and mention the INDIA bloc's planned marches and former CEC O.P. Rawat's criticism of the Special Intensive Revision. [2][6][7]
The claim rests on an allegation that the electoral system has been captured. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The Supreme Court judgment in the record examined the appointment process for election commissioners but did not uphold any finding of capture. Press reports of the Congress's own statement and opposition activities do not prove the allegation, so the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofJairam Ramesh (Indian National Congress)1 Oct 2026
“Form 6 changes were introduced by the CEC unconstitutionally in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll. Clearly, the move was orchestrated by the PM-HM (Narendra Modi-Amit Shah) duo.”
The claim treats allegations as established fact. The only sources for illegality, the Gen Z motive and PM-HM orchestration are statements by Ramesh and the Congress. The Election Commission denies any change to the statutory form, and the Supreme Court ruling cited in the controversy upheld the ECI's SIR powers without examining the July online change. No official document or court order in the record supports the claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Jairam Ramesh said that Form 6 changes were introduced unconstitutionally by the Chief Election Commissioner in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll, and that the move was orchestrated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said there was no change to the statutory Form 6; an additional declaration was added under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms upheld the ECI's power to conduct SIR under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read with Article 324, but did not specifically review the July 2026 online Form 6 change.
In July 2026, the online version of Form 6 on the Election Commission's ECINet portal was modified to include a new declaration. [1]
Jairam Ramesh and the Congress alleged the change was illegal and unconstitutional and created a barrier for first-time Gen Z voters. [2][4][6]
The Election Commission maintained that there was no change to the statutory Form 6 and that an additional declaration had been added under the SIR process. [4]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment upheld the ECI's SIR powers but did not specifically review the July 2026 online Form 6 changes. [7][12]
The claim treats allegations as established fact. The only sources for illegality, the Gen Z motive and PM-HM orchestration are statements by Ramesh and the Congress. The Election Commission denies any change to the statutory form, and the Supreme Court ruling cited in the controversy upheld the ECI's SIR powers without examining the July online change. No official document or court order in the record supports the claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“First Prime Minister Narendra Modi did ‘notebandi’ now doing ‘votebandi’, taking away people’s rights”
The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The record contains no Election Commission or court finding that supports it; the only official document describes the 2024 election as democratic. A news report shows a similar allegation by another leader, but an allegation is not proof.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi first did demonetisation (notebandi) and is now doing vote theft (votebandi), taking away people's rights.
theprint.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The official record contains no Election Commission or court finding of 'votebandi' or vote theft. The only official document, a Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024, describes the 2024 general election as a democratic exercise with robust voter engagement and a mandate for Prime Minister Modi. A news abstract reports that Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav made a similar allegation that the BJP's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh was 'votebandi' after 'notebandi', but that is an allegation, not an official finding.
A Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024 describes the 2024 general election as a democratic exercise with robust voter engagement and a mandate for Prime Minister Modi. [4]
A news abstract reports that Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav alleged the BJP's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh was 'votebandi' after 'notebandi', but it records an allegation, not an official finding. [2]
The record contains no Election Commission order, court judgment or official figure showing that votes were stolen or voters' rights were taken away. [2][4]
The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The record contains no Election Commission or court finding that supports it; the only official document describes the 2024 election as democratic. A news report shows a similar allegation by another leader, but an allegation is not proof.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofPawan Khera, Congress (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“Today, the whole country is worried about vote theft. They feel like the entire mandate is being stolen. Governments built on theft and robbery are in power.”
The claim is a sweeping allegation of systemic fraud. Pawan Khera offers no document, court finding or official figure to prove vote theft across India; the record before us contains none. The Election Commission denies the allegation and describes its exercise as routine, but its denial alone cannot settle the matter. The Supreme Court's interventions raise questions about the revision's power, procedure and timing, yet the court record provided does not uphold a finding that votes were stolen or that any government obtained power through theft.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress leader Pawan Khera alleged that vote theft is happening across India, that the entire mandate is being stolen, and that governments built on 'theft and robbery' are in power.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is a routine, legally mandated process to remove names of dead, shifted or duplicate voters, and has denied the allegation of vote theft. For Bihar, the Commission's official figures show 7.89 crore electors as of 24 June 2025, 65 lakh removed from the draft list of 1 August 2025, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors removed, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors added, with a final roll of about 7.42 crore published on 30 September 2025. The Supreme Court, hearing challenges to the Bihar exercise, identified questions about the Commission's power, procedure and timing; the court record provided contains no finding that votes were stolen or that any mandate was robbed.
The Election Commission has stated that the Special Intensive Revision is designed to identify and remove names of voters who are dead, have moved away, or appear twice, and has denied claims that it amounts to vote theft or manipulation. [2][4]
According to the Commission's press release on Bihar, there were 7.89 crore electors as on 24 June 2025; 65 lakh were removed from the draft list, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed from that draft, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, giving a final roll of about 7.42 crore on 30 September 2025. [12]
The Supreme Court's order of 10 July 2025 in the petitions against the Bihar Special Intensive Revision recorded three prima facie questions: the Commission's authority to do the exercise, the procedure and manner, and the timing, given that Bihar elections were due in November 2025. [5]
For the 2024 general election, the Election Commission published electoral rolls showing 96.88 crore registered voters across the country, an increase of about 8 percent over 2019, with 2.63 crore new electors added. [11]
The claim is a sweeping allegation of systemic fraud. Pawan Khera offers no document, court finding or official figure to prove vote theft across India; the record before us contains none. The Election Commission denies the allegation and describes its exercise as routine, but its denial alone cannot settle the matter. The Supreme Court's interventions raise questions about the revision's power, procedure and timing, yet the court record provided does not uphold a finding that votes were stolen or that any government obtained power through theft.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“Opposition has been quite successful in conveying to people that the PM and the HM have destroyed democracy and elections are stolen.”
The claim asserts a serious allegation: that elections were stolen and that the Prime Minister and Home Minister destroyed democracy. The only official document retrieved is a government press release that describes the 2024 election as democratic and transparent, but it is the government's own account from December 2024 and does not settle the later allegation. No independent record such as an Election Commission order or court judgment is in the sources, so the allegation remains unproven rather than contradicted by an official adjudication.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said the opposition has successfully conveyed to people that the Prime Minister and Home Minister have destroyed democracy and that elections are stolen.
theprint.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The only official document in the sources, a Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024, describes the 2024 general election as a resilient democracy with robust voter engagement, civil conduct and a transparent process. A news report records Rahul Gandhi's accusation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar attacked democracy and that elections were being stolen, but it contains no independent verification. No Election Commission order, court judgment or other official finding in the retrieved record supports the claim that any election was stolen.
A Press Information Bureau release of 30 December 2024 describes the 2024 general election as a resilient democracy, marked by robust voter engagement, civil conduct and a transparent process, and says PM Modi secured a historic third term. [2]
NDTV reported that Rahul Gandhi accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of attacking democracy and alleged that elections were being 'stolen'. [1]
The retrieved record contains no court order, Election Commission finding or other independent official document showing that any election was stolen or that the Prime Minister and Home Minister destroyed democracy. [1][2]
The claim asserts a serious allegation: that elections were stolen and that the Prime Minister and Home Minister destroyed democracy. The only official document retrieved is a government press release that describes the 2024 election as democratic and transparent, but it is the government's own account from December 2024 and does not settle the later allegation. No independent record such as an Election Commission order or court judgment is in the sources, so the allegation remains unproven rather than contradicted by an official adjudication.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“The pawns are just a front, the PM, HM are behind the vote chori and thus they are winning polls”
The claim is an allegation of election rigging against the Prime Minister and Home Minister. The official record provided does not support it: the Election Commission, the constitutional body that conducts elections, rejected the 'vote chori' charge as factually incorrect and asked for proof, and the Supreme Court's judgment on the Bihar electoral-roll revision makes no finding implicating these two office-holders. Because no document, court finding or official figure connects them to vote theft, the allegation is unproven on this record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge alleged that the Prime Minister and Home Minister are behind the vote theft and are thus winning elections.
theprint.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said on 14 August 2025 that 'vote chori' was a false narrative and that proof should be given instead. It had earlier fact-checked Opposition posts alleging vote fraud and called them factually incorrect. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment on the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision in Bihar examines the Commission's authority and procedure but contains no finding that the Prime Minister or Home Minister directed any vote theft.
On 14 August 2025 the Election Commission said instead of creating a false narrative by using phrases like 'vote chori', proof should be given, and that the 'one person one vote' law has existed since the first elections in 1951-52. [2]
On 11 August 2025 the Election Commission fact-checked Opposition leaders' vote fraud allegations and rejected them as 'factually incorrect'; it also stamped a Rahul Gandhi post as 'MISLEADING'. [4]
The Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026 concerned the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar; the provided pages discuss the Commission's powers and contain no finding against the Prime Minister or Home Minister. [7]
The retrieved record shows the Election Commission disputed vote theft allegations made by Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders, but no official document names the Prime Minister or Home Minister as being behind the alleged theft. [1][3][5]
The claim is an allegation of election rigging against the Prime Minister and Home Minister. The official record provided does not support it: the Election Commission, the constitutional body that conducts elections, rejected the 'vote chori' charge as factually incorrect and asked for proof, and the Supreme Court's judgment on the Bihar electoral-roll revision makes no finding implicating these two office-holders. Because no document, court finding or official figure connects them to vote theft, the allegation is unproven on this record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“Because PM [Narendra] Modi and Amit Shah want a rubber stamp who can help them remain in power. In fact they are the real culprits,”
The claim is an accusation about secret motives and culpability. The record before us contains the political allegation itself and a Supreme Court judgment on election commissioner appointments, but no court finding, commission finding, or official document that establishes Mr Modi or Mr Shah sought a rubber-stamp Election Commission or were the 'real culprits'. The Election Commission's own position is that internal disagreements are normal, which does not prove the charge. The claim therefore remains an unproven allegation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Kharge alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Amit Shah want a rubber-stamp Election Commission to help them remain in power and called them the real culprits.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 23 September 2026 on the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner appointment law, recorded the statutory Selection Committee: the Prime Minister is chairperson, alongside the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. It said the Election Commission must be insulated from exclusive executive control, but the judgment contains no finding that Mr Modi or Mr Shah appointed anyone as a rubber stamp or rigged elections. The Election Commission has not accepted the charge; it has said differences among commissioners are part of internal deliberation.
Mallikarjun Kharge alleged at an INDIA alliance partners' meeting that Gyanesh Kumar was appointed Chief Election Commissioner because Mr Modi and Mr Amit Shah wanted a 'rubber stamp' who could help them remain in power. [2]
Other Congress leaders made similar allegations: Jairam Ramesh called the Election Commission an 'arm of the BJP' and described the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls as part of a 'Modi-Shah strategy' to manufacture a majority. [1]
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment records that the selection committee for the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners has the Prime Minister as chairperson, the Leader of Opposition as a member, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister as a member. [9]
The same Supreme Court judgment contains no finding that Prime Minister Modi or Home Minister Amit Shah wanted a rubber-stamp election body or were culpable in any electoral wrongdoing. [9]
The Election Commission said Election Commissioners had raised issues about deletion of names from electoral rolls and the handling of voter databases, and it maintained that differing views are a normal part of institutional deliberations. [5][8]
The claim is an accusation about secret motives and culpability. The record before us contains the political allegation itself and a Supreme Court judgment on election commissioner appointments, but no court finding, commission finding, or official document that establishes Mr Modi or Mr Shah sought a rubber-stamp Election Commission or were the 'real culprits'. The Election Commission's own position is that internal disagreements are normal, which does not prove the charge. The claim therefore remains an unproven allegation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“Mr. Kharge also said that by changing the rules in Form 6 for enrolling for the first-time-voters by the Election Commission, the youngsters are deliberately being discouraged from voting.”
The factual core of the claim — that the online Form 6 process was altered during the SIR and that this affected first-time voters, prompting written objections from two Election Commissioners and concerns in reporting — is supported by the record. But the word "deliberately" turns the description into an allegation of motive, and the record contains no court finding, official figure or document establishing that the Commission acted to discourage young people from voting. The two Commissioners objected on legal grounds, and the Commission later removed the declaration; neither establishes intent to discourage.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Kharge alleged that the Election Commission's changes to Form 6 rules for enrolling first-time voters deliberately discourage young people from voting.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Form 6 is the application a first-time voter fills out to get on the electoral roll, prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. During the Special Intensive Revision of rolls that began in Bihar in mid-2025, the Election Commission added an SIR-linked declaration (Annexure D) to the online Form 6 process, asking for details such as parent and grandparent information. Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record that the statutory form could not be changed without amending the 1960 Rules, while the Commission's own position was that Form 6 itself was not changed, only a separate annexure added.
Form 6 is the application a first-time voter fills out to enrol, and it is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. [1][3][4]
During the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls that began in Bihar in mid-2025, the Election Commission added an SIR-linked declaration (Annexure D) to the online Form 6 process, requiring extra details including parent and grandparent information. [1][6][8]
Two of the three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, objected in writing that the statutory Form 6 could not be altered without amending the 1960 Rules; Sandhu described the change as "unauthorised and illegal" and said it "must be removed immediately". [2][4][7]
The Commission's stated position was that there was "no change" to Form 6 and that only a separate annexure had been added for the SIR-linked question. [6][8]
On 26 September 2026 the Commission said the forms as per the Rules would be used for the non-SIR period, and on the intervening night of 29-30 September it removed the SIR declaration from its portal in states where the revision had concluded. [6][7]
One report said the inclusion of the SIR question "raised concerns about its impact on young people seeking to enrol for the first time" — a concern, not a finding that the Commission deliberately discouraged anyone. [1]
The factual core of the claim — that the online Form 6 process was altered during the SIR and that this affected first-time voters, prompting written objections from two Election Commissioners and concerns in reporting — is supported by the record. But the word "deliberately" turns the description into an allegation of motive, and the record contains no court finding, official figure or document establishing that the Commission acted to discourage young people from voting. The two Commissioners objected on legal grounds, and the Commission later removed the declaration; neither establishes intent to discourage.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“The Opposition leaders, Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge said, will seek an appointment with the President in the second week of October to inform her of the "manner in which institutions are being taken over".”
The claim rests on a broad allegation — institutions are being taken over — and a future meeting. None of the provided records contains a court finding, official figure or document supporting that allegation, and the Election Commission's reported clarification disputed the special intensive revision claims. The Supreme Court's order addresses constitutional concerns about appointment processes without making any finding of institutional takeover. Because the speaker offered no document or official finding for the takeover allegation, and the record does not support it, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge said opposition leaders will seek an appointment with the President in the second week of October to inform her of the manner in which institutions are being taken over.
ndtv.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
No source among the retrieved records confirms that Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge's stated presidential meeting was sought or scheduled, or that institutions are being taken over. The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment on Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner appointments discusses the need to insulate the Election Commission from exclusive executive control, but makes no finding that institutions have been captured. The Election Commission's published Bihar special intensive revision release sets out procedural safeguards, including that no name can be deleted without notice and a speaking order, and that aggrieved electors can appeal.
In a 23 September 2026 judgment on appointments to the Election Commission, the Supreme Court discussed insulating the body from exclusive executive control, but did not find that institutions have been taken over. [1]
The Election Commission's 27 July 2025 release on the Bihar special intensive revision states that no name can be deleted from the draft roll without notice and a speaking order, and any aggrieved elector can appeal to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer. [6]
The Hindu reported on 28 September 2026 that the Election Commission had issued a fact-based clarification calling the Opposition's special intensive revision allegations 'fabricated', while the BJP accused Opposition leaders of making unsubstantiated claims. [2]
Kharge was reported separately as alleging that institutions were being weakened and accusing the Election Commission of being influenced, but no source supported those allegations as fact. [3]
The claim rests on a broad allegation — institutions are being taken over — and a future meeting. None of the provided records contains a court finding, official figure or document supporting that allegation, and the Election Commission's reported clarification disputed the special intensive revision claims. The Supreme Court's order addresses constitutional concerns about appointment processes without making any finding of institutional takeover. Because the speaker offered no document or official finding for the takeover allegation, and the record does not support it, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi (Indian National Congress)26 Sept 2026
“Rahul Gandhi demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner of India Gyanesh Kumar over the controversy of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and alleged the participation of the Election Commission in rigging the recent elections in India”
The demand for resignation is on record, but the factual charge to test is that the Election Commission rigged recent elections. That is an allegation, and the official record does not support it. The Supreme Court examined the SIR deletions and did not find them contrary to procedure; the Election Commission says the SIR orders were unanimous. A pending petition is not a finding of rigging, so the allegation remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and alleged that the Election Commission participated in rigging recent elections in India.
aljazeera.com, 26 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 2026 judgment in the SIR case says deletions under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. The Election Commission's 26 September 2026 press note says the SIR orders for states and Union territories were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. A Lok Sabha answer describes the SIR safeguards: house-to-house enumeration, a draft roll, a claims-and-objections period, and restoration of names where grievances are found valid.
Rahul Gandhi demanded that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign immediately over the SIR row and alleged vote-rigging against the Election Commission. [1][5]
The Supreme Court, in its 2026 judgment on the SIR, held that deletions effected under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [10]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the SIR orders for all states and Union territories were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [12]
A Lok Sabha answer says the SIR exercise included house-to-house enumeration, a draft roll, a claims-and-objections period, and restoration of names where grievances were found valid. [9]
A Supreme Court petition seeks criminal prosecution of the Chief Election Commissioner over SIR deletions, but no ruling on that petition is shown in the record. [4]
The demand for resignation is on record, but the factual charge to test is that the Election Commission rigged recent elections. That is an allegation, and the official record does not support it. The Supreme Court examined the SIR deletions and did not find them contrary to procedure; the Election Commission says the SIR orders were unanimous. A pending petition is not a finding of rigging, so the allegation remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Misleading
6 claims
Part of it is true, but the way it was said gives a wrong picture.
MisleadingJairam Ramesh (Indian National Congress)1 Oct 2026
“Nearly 14 crore voters have already been disenfranchised by the SIR,”
nearly 14 crore voters, 47 lakh
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
nearly 14 crore voters
Jairam Ramesh said that nearly 14 crore voters have already been disenfranchised by the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
47 lakh
net reduction in Bihar electoral roll after SIR, ECI PIB, 30 Sep 2025
pib.gov.in
The Election Commission's press note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision, published on 30 September 2025, says the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, down from 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. It also records that 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added during the process. The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India, examined the SIR and held that it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate, as recorded in the PIB note of 25 July 2026.
The Election Commission's official press note on Bihar's SIR says the final electoral roll published on 30 September 2025 contained about 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore on 24 June 2025 — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. [10]
The same press note says 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added to the draft list through Form 6 during the Bihar SIR. [10]
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026 in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India, held that the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with its constitutional obligation under Article 324. [12][9]
The figure of nearly 14 crore deleted voters appears in statements by Congress leaders and media reports, not in the Election Commission's official press notes on the SIR phases. [1][6]
The Election Commission has stated that the SIR is meant to make rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out, with safeguards such as house-to-house visits, claims and objections, and appeals. [12]
The claim treats all deletions during the SIR as disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The official record shows a different picture: in Bihar, the only state for which the sources give an official before-and-after count, the net reduction was about 47 lakh, and 21.53 lakh eligible voters were added back. The 14 crore figure is not an Election Commission number; it comes from Congress leaders' statements and media reports. The Supreme Court has also upheld the SIR process as lawful.
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“It is shocking that as many as 13.3 crore voters have blatantly been removed from voter list,”
13.3 crore voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
13.3 crore voters
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said in September 2026 that 13.3 crore voters had been blatantly removed from the voter list.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press release of 30 September 2025 on Bihar's completed Special Intensive Revision (SIR) shows 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, but 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, leaving a final roll of about 7.42 crore against 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. Media reports say over 13 crore names have been deleted from draft rolls in 30 States/Union Territories so far, and that those incorrectly deleted can apply for inclusion in the final roll over the next month.
The Election Commission's 30 September 2025 press release on Bihar's SIR says 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, and the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors against 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. [9]
Indian Express reported that the SIR has led to over 13 crore names being deleted from draft rolls in 30 States/Union Territories so far, with Delhi's draft roll dropping from 1.45 crore to 97.53 lakh and Maharashtra's from 9.78 crore to 7.71 crore; Deccan Herald put the figure at 13.3 crore names wiped out of draft voter lists. [1][5]
Those incorrectly deleted in the draft roll can apply for inclusion in the final roll over the next month, and 93% of appeals decided by tribunals resulted in the eventual inclusion of voters. [1][2]
The number is not invented: media reports show over 13 crore names deleted from draft rolls. But the claim presents these draft deletions as if 13.3 crore voters have been finally removed from the voter list. The Election Commission's own Bihar data shows the final net reduction was much smaller than the draft deletions, and those incorrectly deleted can be restored. That omission makes the claim misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingIndian National Congress (Congress Working Committee) (Indian National Congress)29 Sept 2026
“The Congress Working Committee demanded restoration of 130 million deleted voters in the electoral rolls and a halt to the special intensive revision or SIR.”
130 million voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
130 million voters
The Congress Working Committee demanded that 130 million voters deleted from the electoral rolls be restored and that the special intensive revision (SIR) be halted.
hindustantimes.com, 29 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision is being carried out in phases with safeguards so that no eligible elector is left out: draft rolls are published, claims and objections are invited, and names are restored where valid before the final roll. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the exercise is within the Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and not contrary to the prescribed procedure.
A press note issued through PIB on 25 July 2026 states that the Special Intensive Revision includes a draft roll, a statutory period for claims and objections, and publication of the final roll after verification, with safeguards against wrongful deletion. [3]
The same note records that the Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, upheld the legality of the SIR as within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and its Article 324 obligation to ensure free and fair elections. [3]
The widely reported figure of over 13 crore deletions concerns draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories, not the final electoral rolls. [8]
The revision schedule provides for disposal of claims and objections and checking of electoral roll health before the final roll is published on the notified date. [7]
The Supreme Court's judgment says the deletions effected pursuant to the SIR cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [10]
The Congress demand rests on the number 130 million 'deleted voters'. That number matches reporting of over 13 crore names removed at the draft-roll stage, before the claims-and-objections period and final roll. Calling those 130 million final deletions overstates what the Election Commission's process shows, since eligible voters can be restored. The legality of the SIR itself has been upheld by the Supreme Court, so the factual basis for the number as permanent deletion is misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingPawan Khera, Congress (Indian National Congress)checked 12 Oct 2026
“What do you have to say about the act of war Pakistan has been carrying out against us for years?”
The claim uses 'act of war' as if it is an established description of Pakistan's conduct. The official record describes Pakistan's actions as cross-border terrorism, not as an act of war, and the 'act of war' phrase in the sources is Pakistan's warning about India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. So the underlying accusation of terrorism is present, but the legal label 'act of war for years' is not confirmed and omits that the term comes from Pakistan's warning.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Pawan Khera said Pakistan has been carrying out an act of war against India for years, in response to Pakistan's warning that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war.
thenewsmill.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau's 14 May 2025 release on Operation Sindoor says India acted after the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack and suspended the Indus Waters Treaty until Pakistan 'credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. It describes Pakistan's actions as terrorism and terror bases, not as an act of war. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, at the UN, warned that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war.
The PIB release says India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty after the April 2025 Pahalgam attack, citing Pakistan's support for cross-border terrorism. [1]
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warned at the UN that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war. [5]
The PIB release describes Pakistan's actions as terrorism and terror bases, not as an act of war. [1]
The claim uses 'act of war' as if it is an established description of Pakistan's conduct. The official record describes Pakistan's actions as cross-border terrorism, not as an act of war, and the 'act of war' phrase in the sources is Pakistan's warning about India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. So the underlying accusation of terrorism is present, but the legal label 'act of war for years' is not confirmed and omits that the term comes from Pakistan's warning.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)12 Oct 2026
“Modi-ji enacted a law in 2023 granting legal protection to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. They were given immunity not even enjoyed by the President of India or the Chief Justice of the country,”
The first part of the claim is supported: the 2023 Act exists and Section 16 grants protection from court proceedings for official acts. But the comparison to the President and the Chief Justice is not established by any official document in the record; it is the petitioner's argument and an oral observation by a bench. The protection is also limited to acts in discharge of official duty and is under challenge, which the claim omits. That missing context changes how the comparison reads.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Mallikarjun Kharge said that Modi enacted a law in 2023 granting legal protection to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, giving them immunity not enjoyed by the President of India or the Chief Justice.
ndtv.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Parliament passed the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023; a Supreme Court order records it was brought into effect on 2 January 2024. Section 16, as quoted in reporting, bars any court from entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against a CEC or EC for acts done in discharge of official duty. The Supreme Court has issued notice on a challenge to Section 16 but refused to stay it, and a bench has orally observed the protection is greater than judges' — but no final ruling compares it to the President or Chief Justice.
Parliament enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and a Supreme Court order records it was brought into effect on 2 January 2024. [7][9]
Section 16 of the Act says no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against a person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word done or spoken in the discharge of official duty. [5]
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging Section 16 but refused to stay the provision. [5]
The argument that this immunity was not granted even to the President, Governors or judges was made by the petitioner Lok Prahari, not by a court. [5][6]
A Supreme Court bench orally remarked that the CEC and Election Commissioners enjoy greater legal immunity than even judges, but no final order in the sources settles that comparison. [4]
The first part of the claim is supported: the 2023 Act exists and Section 16 grants protection from court proceedings for official acts. But the comparison to the President and the Chief Justice is not established by any official document in the record; it is the petitioner's argument and an oral observation by a bench. The protection is also limited to acts in discharge of official duty and is under challenge, which the claim omits. That missing context changes how the comparison reads.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“His two fellow members have written 14 times in 10 months! It questions his very integrity and intentions. Therefore, he should be removed from his position.”
14 times in 10 months
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
14 times in 10 months
Kharge said in September 2026 that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's two fellow Election Commissioners had written 14 times in 10 months, which he said questions the CEC's integrity, and that the CEC should be removed from his position.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the SIR orders issued on 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, and that the press note itself has the approval of the full Commission. No official document in the record confirms that the two Election Commissioners wrote 14 objections; the number appears in media reports tracing it to an investigation by The Indian Express.
Media reports trace the figure of 14 objections in 10 months to an investigation by The Indian Express, saying the objections came from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. [2][5][6]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, and the press note has the approval of the full Commission. [10]
The number Kharge quoted rests on a newspaper investigation, not an official record. The Election Commission's own press note says the SIR decisions were unanimous and approved by the full Commission, which disputes the framing of one-man decision-making. Because the claim omits that denial, the matter is disputed rather than settled.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
This page reports claims and the verdicts reached on them. It does not characterise Indian National Congress, and no aggregate rating of any entity is published here — see the methodology.