Union government
Jeep scandal
A parliamentary committee reported in 1951 but its report was never made public; the government closed the matter in 1955 without action, and Menon joined the Union Cabinet in 1956.
The record
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.
189 documented, 71 being documented
Timeline
Scroll sideways along the timeline
1947–1964, 6 cases
Union government
A parliamentary committee reported in 1951 but its report was never made public; the government closed the matter in 1955 without action, and Menon joined the Union Cabinet in 1956.
Union government
Mudgal resigned during the debate on Nehru's expulsion motion in September 1951.
Union government
About ₹1.26 crore of LIC funds in Mundhra-group shares (estimates vary)
Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari resigned in February 1958, as did the Finance Secretary and LIC chairman; Mundhra was convicted of fraud.
Union government
₹20.25 crore government-backed loan (Lok Sabha, 1962)
Charge-sheeted by the CBI in 1967 and brought back from London in 1971, Teja was convicted; the company was merged into the Shipping Corporation of India.
Union government
Malaviya resigned after the Das report raised prima facie concerns; no prosecution followed.
Punjab
The Das Commission upheld some of the charges in June 1964, and Kairon resigned that month.
1966–1977, 4 cases
Union government
Maruti Ltd was liquidated in 1977 and the Justice A.C. Gupta Commission issued a strongly critical report; no conviction followed.
Union government
₹60 lakh withdrawn from SBI, mostly recovered
Nagarwala was convicted and died in custody in 1972; the 1978 Reddy Commission said the Prime Minister's office had obstructed the police inquiry.
Union government
Mishra was killed in January 1975; no final verdict against Ram appears in the record reviewed.
Bihar
The prosecution was withdrawn in 1981 after his own cabinet approved it; the Supreme Court upheld the withdrawal in 1982 and, by 3:2, in 1986.
1980–1984, 4 cases
Union government
About US$9.85 million notional loss (Committee on Public Undertakings, 1983)
Parliament's Committee on Public Undertakings found the purchase 'not prudent' but made no finding of wrongdoing; no prosecution followed.
Maharashtra
Antulay resigned in January 1982; he was cleared after a 12-year legal battle ending in the Supreme Court.
Madhya Pradesh
A one-judge commission and the High Court cleared Arjun Singh.
Union government
US$100,000 (alleged)
A Delhi court acquitted all three in December 2003, calling Pathak's evidence unreliable.
1984–1989, 3 cases
Union government
₹64 crore in alleged kickbacks on a ₹1,437 crore howitzer contract
The Delhi High Court found no evidence against Rajiv Gandhi in 2004; Quattrocchi was discharged in 2011 and never extradited; the Supreme Court dismissed the last appeal in August 2026.
Union government
Alleged 7% commission on a ₹465 crore contract
A 1990 CBI FIR named a former Defence Secretary and company representatives; the probes ended without any conviction.
Union government
Rao and Tewari were let go for lack of evidence in 1997; Chandraswami was acquitted in 2004, though the court held the documents were forged.
1991–1996, 9 cases
Kerala
About ₹2.3 crore alleged loss (CAG)
Proceedings against Karunakaran ended with his death in 2010; the trial of the others remains held up by petitions in the Supreme Court.
Union government
About ₹4,000 crore (widely cited estimate)
Mehta's conviction was upheld in 2003 and bank officials were sentenced as late as 2018; no minister was charged.
Karnataka
A special court acquitted them in 2003; the High Court dismissed the CBI's appeal in 2011.
Union government
A special court convicted both in 2000; the Delhi High Court acquitted them in 2002. The MPs' parliamentary immunity was overruled by the Supreme Court in 2024.
Union government
₹650 crore alleged loss (claim by former minister Kalpnath Rai)
Kalpnath Rai resigned; no prosecution established responsibility.
Union government
The Supreme Court cancelled 15 allotments and imposed ₹50 lakh in damages in 1996, then set aside the damages and the CBI direction on review in 1999.
Union government
She died in 2015 without a verdict; her former aide was sentenced to two years in 2016.
Union government
Over ₹1.16 crore in cash recovered from the minister's home (CBI)
Convicted in several cases; the Delhi High Court upheld a sentence in 2011, and he got five years in the Haryana Telecom case.
Union government
₹133 crore paid for urea never delivered (CBI)
A special CBI court convicted eight people in 2018, including the PM's relative B. Sanjeeva Rao.
2004–2009, 8 cases
Haryana
₹1,500 crore alleged loss to landowners (CBI, 2018)
The Supreme Court cancelled the land transfers in 2018; Hooda's trial continues.
Andhra Pradesh
Eleven CBI chargesheets have been filed since 2011; the trial is pending and nothing has been proven.
Union government
Natwar Singh resigned in December 2005; the Pathak inquiry found allocations were made to oblige an associate but no evidence that he received money.
Haryana
A special CBI court discharged Hooda and AJL in April 2026.
Union government
₹578 crore alleged wrongful gain to Devas (CBI, 2016)
The deal was cancelled in 2011; in 2022 the Supreme Court called it a 'product of fraud' by Devas. The criminal cases are pending.
Union government
The CBI found no evidence of kickbacks, and the Delhi High Court declined to order a further probe in 2016.
Union government
₹1.76 lakh crore presumptive loss (CAG, 2010)
The Supreme Court cancelled all 122 licences in 2012; a special CBI court acquitted all accused in 2017. The CBI's appeal is pending in the Delhi High Court.
Union government
₹1 crore in cash displayed in the Lok Sabha
A parliamentary committee found no evidence against either; in 2013 a court discharged most accused, and the money trail was never traced.
2009–2014, 11 cases
Union government
Over ₹90 crore alleged loss on the timing-scoring contract (CBI, 2011)
A court accepted the ED's money-laundering closure report in April 2025 after a related CBI case closed; Kalmadi was never convicted and died in January 2026.
Maharashtra
Chavan resigned as Chief Minister in 2010; in 2017 the Bombay High Court set aside the sanction to prosecute him.
Union government
₹1.86 lakh crore estimated windfall to private allottees (CAG, 2012)
The Supreme Court cancelled 214 allocations in 2014. Former coal secretary H.C. Gupta and others have been convicted in several cases (under appeal); other cases ended in acquittal.
Union government
₹1,63,557 crore potential earnings to the operator over 60 years (CAG — not a computed loss)
These remain audit findings; no prosecution followed.
Goa
₹35,000 crore (Justice M.B. Shah Commission estimate)
A court discharged Kamat in one case in 2025; another chargesheet against him remains.
Maharashtra
About ₹70,000 crore spent for a ~0.1% rise in irrigation (spending, not a loss estimate)
The state ACB told the High Court in 2019 that Pawar was not involved; probes into other tenders continued.
Union government
AJL properties worth over ₹2,000 crore allegedly acquired for ₹50 lakh (ED allegation)
A trial court declined to take cognisance of the ED chargesheet in December 2025; the ED's challenge is listed in the Delhi High Court for 12 October 2026.
Union government
₹14 crore alleged bribe offer (per the Army chief)
The CBI closed the procurement probe in 2014; the trial in the bribe-offer case is under way.
Haryana
Bought for ₹7.5 crore in 2008, sold to DLF for ₹58 crore (ED allegation)
A Delhi court took cognisance of the ED's money-laundering chargesheet in April 2026 and granted Vadra bail; no court has found guilt.
Union government
€556 million contract; the ED alleges a middleman received about €30 million
India cancelled the contract in 2014; Italy's top court acquitted the company executives in 2019; middleman Christian Michel was extradited in 2018 and no Indian verdict has been delivered.
Union government
₹90 lakh allegedly paid for a Railway Board post (CBI)
Bansal resigned and is a prosecution witness, not an accused; the trial of ten accused continues.
Amounts are the estimating body's own figure (CAG, CBI, a commission or a court): an estimate or allegation, not a proven loss. Each outcome is stated as of October 2026. Cases that involved several parties, such as the Jain hawala diaries, are left out.
1958
Benefit to the nationIn 1957, the Kerala Legislative Assembly passed a Bill to regulate schools in the state, including aided and private schools, with extensive state control. The President of India asked the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) whether parts of the Bill violated the constitutional right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their own schools. In an advisory opinion on 22 May 1958, the Supreme Court held several provisions inconsistent with that right; the Kerala Education Act, 1958 was later enacted with the President's assent on 19 February 1959.
Kerala Education Bill, 1957 and minority educational rights
1958
Benefit to the nationIn 1957, the Kerala Legislative Assembly passed a Bill to regulate schools in the state, including aided and private schools, with extensive state control. The President of India asked the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) whether parts of the Bill violated the constitutional right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their own schools. In an advisory opinion on 22 May 1958, the Supreme Court held several provisions inconsistent with that right; the Kerala Education Act, 1958 was later enacted with the President's assent on 19 February 1959.
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 1957, the Kerala Legislative Assembly passed a Bill to regulate schools in the state, including aided and private schools, with extensive state control. The President of India asked the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) whether parts of the Bill violated the constitutional right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their own schools. In an advisory opinion on 22 May 1958, the Supreme Court held several provisions inconsistent with that right; the Kerala Education Act, 1958 was later enacted with the President's assent on 19 February 1959.
Who did it
Kerala Education Bill, 1957 and minority educational rights
The evidence
Where it stands today
The advisory opinion is final and there is no pending proceeding in this matter. The Kerala Education Act, 1958 (Act 6 of 1959), enacted after the opinion, stands.
What was done
The President of India referred the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion. The Supreme Court, on 22 May 1958, held several provisions of the Bill inconsistent with Article 30(1) minority educational rights. The Kerala Education Act, 1958 (Act 6 of 1959) was subsequently enacted and received the President's assent on 19 February 1959.
What it meant for the country
The Supreme Court's advisory opinion safeguarded minority educational institutions from extensive State control by holding several provisions inconsistent with Article 30(1), and it became a leading authority influencing later educational legislation and court decisions.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
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.
Firearms regulation
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.
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
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.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
1959
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.
Communist government of Kerala led by E.M.S. Namboodiripad
1959
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.
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
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.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026
1959
Harm to the nationKerala had an elected Communist government in the late 1950s. On 31 July 1959, the President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, which allows the Centre to take over a state government if it decides the state cannot be run under the Constitution. Fresh elections in February 1960 brought a coalition government to office, ending President's rule.
Dismissal of Kerala communist ministry
1959
Harm to the nationKerala had an elected Communist government in the late 1950s. On 31 July 1959, the President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, which allows the Centre to take over a state government if it decides the state cannot be run under the Constitution. Fresh elections in February 1960 brought a coalition government to office, ending President's rule.
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
Kerala had an elected Communist government in the late 1950s. On 31 July 1959, the President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, which allows the Centre to take over a state government if it decides the state cannot be run under the Constitution. Fresh elections in February 1960 brought a coalition government to office, ending President's rule.
Who did it
Dismissal of Kerala communist ministry
The evidence
Where it stands today
The President's rule ended after the February 1960 mid-term elections. The Supreme Court case concerning the Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill concluded with a judgment that the bill did not lapse on dissolution. No pending proceeding is recorded.
What was done
The President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 on 31 July 1959, taking over the government of Kerala, as recorded in a Supreme Court judgment. Fresh elections were held in February 1960 and a coalition government took office. The Supreme Court later held that a bill pending before the President did not lapse when the Assembly was dissolved.
What it meant for the country
An elected state government was removed and Kerala was run under President's rule from 31 July 1959 until fresh elections in February 1960 produced a coalition government.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026