1948Closed — no court ever decided
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
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.
189 documented, 71 being documented
Timeline
The scams that cost India
Scroll sideways along the timeline
Jawaharlal Nehru
1947–1964, 6 cases
- 1951Resigned
Union government
Mudgal case
Mudgal resigned during the debate on Nehru's expulsion motion in September 1951.
- 1957Resigned
Union government
Mundhra–LIC scandal
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.
- 1962Convictions
Union government
Dharma Teja / Jayanti Shipping
₹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.
- 1963Resigned
Union government
Serajuddin affair (K.D. Malaviya)
Malaviya resigned after the Das report raised prima facie concerns; no prosecution followed.
- 1963Resigned
Punjab
Pratap Singh Kairon case
The Das Commission upheld some of the charges in June 1964, and Kairon resigned that month.
Indira Gandhi
1966–1977, 4 cases
- 1971Commission findings
Union government
Maruti affair
Maruti Ltd was liquidated in 1977 and the Justice A.C. Gupta Commission issued a strongly critical report; no conviction followed.
- 1971Convictions
Union government
Nagarwala case
₹60 lakh withdrawn from SBI, mostly recovered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.
- 1974Unresolved
Union government
Pondicherry import licences (Tulmohan Ram)
Mishra was killed in January 1975; no final verdict against Ram appears in the record reviewed.
- 1975Discharged
Bihar
Patna Urban Cooperative Bank case
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.
Indira Gandhi
1980–1984, 4 cases
- 1980Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
Kuo Oil deal
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.
- 1981Resigned
Maharashtra
Antulay cement scam
Antulay resigned in January 1982; he was cleared after a 12-year legal battle ending in the Supreme Court.
- 1982Closed — no court ever decided
Madhya Pradesh
Churhat lottery case
A one-judge commission and the High Court cleared Arjun Singh.
- 1983Acquitted
Union government
Lakhubhai Pathak cheating case
US$100,000 (alleged)
A Delhi court acquitted all three in December 2003, calling Pathak's evidence unreliable.
Rajiv Gandhi
1984–1989, 3 cases
- 1987Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
Bofors scandal
₹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.
- 1987Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
HDW submarine deal
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.
- 1989Acquitted
Union government
St Kitts forgery case
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.
P.V. Narasimha Rao
1991–1996, 9 cases
- 1991Still in court
Kerala
Palmolein import case
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.
- 1992Convictions
Union government
Securities scam (Harshad Mehta)
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.
- 1992Acquitted
Karnataka
Classik Computer purchase case
A special court acquitted them in 2003; the High Court dismissed the CBI's appeal in 2011.
- 1993Acquitted
Union government
JMM MPs bribery case
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.
- 1994Resigned
Union government
Sugar import scam
₹650 crore alleged loss (claim by former minister Kalpnath Rai)
Kalpnath Rai resigned; no prosecution established responsibility.
- 1996Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
Petrol pump allotments (Satish Sharma)
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.
- 1996Unresolved
Union government
Government shop allotments (Sheila Kaul)
She died in 2015 without a verdict; her former aide was sentenced to two years in 2016.
- 1996Convictions
Union government
Telecom equipment scam (Sukh Ram)
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.
- 1996Convictions
Union government
Urea import scam
₹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.
Manmohan Singh · UPA-I
2004–2009, 8 cases
- 2004Still in court
Haryana
Manesar land acquisition case
₹1,500 crore alleged loss to landowners (CBI, 2018)
The Supreme Court cancelled the land transfers in 2018; Hooda's trial continues.
- 2004Still in court
Andhra Pradesh
Quid-pro-quo investment cases
Eleven CBI chargesheets have been filed since 2011; the trial is pending and nothing has been proven.
- 2005Resigned
Union government
Iraq oil-for-food allegations
Natwar Singh resigned in December 2005; the Pathak inquiry found allocations were made to oblige an associate but no evidence that he received money.
- 2005Discharged
Haryana
AJL Panchkula plot re-allotment
A special CBI court discharged Hooda and AJL in April 2026.
- 2005Still in court
Union government
Antrix–Devas S-band deal
₹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.
- 2005Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
Scorpene submarine deal allegations
The CBI found no evidence of kickbacks, and the Delhi High Court declined to order a further probe in 2016.
- 2008Acquitted
Union government
2G spectrum allocation
₹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.
- 2008Unresolved
Union government
Cash-for-votes
₹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.
Manmohan Singh · UPA-II
2009–2014, 11 cases
- 2010Unresolved
Union government
Commonwealth Games contracts
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.
- 2010Resigned
Maharashtra
Adarsh Housing Society
Chavan resigned as Chief Minister in 2010; in 2017 the Bombay High Court set aside the sanction to prosecute him.
- 2012Convictions
Union government
Coal block allocations (“Coalgate”)
₹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.
- 2012Unresolved
Union government
Delhi airport concessions
₹1,63,557 crore potential earnings to the operator over 60 years (CAG — not a computed loss)
These remain audit findings; no prosecution followed.
- 2012Still in court
Goa
Goa illegal mining
₹35,000 crore (Justice M.B. Shah Commission estimate)
A court discharged Kamat in one case in 2025; another chargesheet against him remains.
- 2012Unresolved
Maharashtra
Maharashtra irrigation allegations
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.
- 2012Still in court
Union government
National Herald / Young Indian
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.
- 2012Still in court
Union government
Tatra trucks bribe-offer allegation
₹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.
- 2012Still in court
Haryana
Robert Vadra–DLF land deal
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.
- 2013Still in court
Union government
AgustaWestland VVIP helicopters
€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.
- 2013Resigned
Union government
Railway Board cash-for-post
₹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.
Years
1961
1961
Benefit to the nationSakal Papers v. Union of India, 1961
In 1956, Parliament passed a law that let the central government fix newspaper prices according to how many pages they had and limit space for advertisements, to help smaller newspapers. In 1960, the government used that law to issue a price-page order. Sakal Papers, a Marathi newspaper publisher from Poona, challenged the law and the order. On 25 September 1961, the Supreme Court held both invalid as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression and as arbitrary, so the law and order were cancelled by the court.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled itNewspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956
1961
Benefit to the nationSakal Papers v. Union of India, 1961
In 1956, Parliament passed a law that let the central government fix newspaper prices according to how many pages they had and limit space for advertisements, to help smaller newspapers. In 1960, the government used that law to issue a price-page order. Sakal Papers, a Marathi newspaper publisher from Poona, challenged the law and the order. On 25 September 1961, the Supreme Court held both invalid as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression and as arbitrary, so the law and order were cancelled by the court.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled itRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyA court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
In 1956, Parliament passed a law that let the central government fix newspaper prices according to how many pages they had and limit space for advertisements, to help smaller newspapers. In 1960, the government used that law to issue a price-page order. Sakal Papers, a Marathi newspaper publisher from Poona, challenged the law and the order. On 25 September 1961, the Supreme Court held both invalid as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression and as arbitrary, so the law and order were cancelled by the court.
Who did it
Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956
The evidence
- The Act defined a "daily newspaper" as a newspaper published on not less than six days a week, and a "newspaper" as a printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news appearing at intervals of not more than a week. [3][6]
- Section 3 of the Act empowered the Central Government to make orders regulating the prices charged for newspapers in relation to their maximum or minimum number of pages, sizes or areas, and the space for advertising matter. [7][10]
- Section 4 of the Act prohibited publication or sale of a newspaper in contravention of an order under section 3; Section 6 set fines up to ₹1,000 for a first conviction, ₹2,000 for a second or later conviction, and ₹500 for failing to furnish returns. [10]
- The 1960 Order prescribed a price-page schedule and reserved to the Central Government the power to permit supplements, except those on 26 January and 15 August. [1]
- The Supreme Court held that freedom of the press is included in freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and that the price-page schedule was a direct interference with that freedom. [1]
Where it stands today
The matter concluded before the Supreme Court on 25 September 1961. No appeal or further proceeding is shown in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956. The central government made the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960 under that Act. Sakal Papers and others challenged the Act and the Order, and the Supreme Court held both invalid.
What it meant for the country
The Supreme Court's decision secured press freedom by cancelling a law and order that fixed newspaper prices by page count and limited advertising space.
- The Supreme Court's ruling removed a price-page schedule that the Court said was intended to cut the circulation of some newspapers by making their prices unattractively high. [1]
- After the ruling, the Act's penalties — fines up to ₹1,000 for a first conviction and ₹2,000 for later convictions — could no longer be applied because the Act was held invalid. [10][8]
- The decision secured freedom of the press by holding that the government could not use price and page controls to restrict circulation. [1][8]
Step by step
- 1952
The Government of India appointed a Press Commission; one of its recommendations was to enact a law such as the one later challenged. [1] - 1956-09-07
Parliament enacted the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956. [2][10] - 1960-10-24
The Central Government made the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960 under section 3 of the Act, after consulting associations of newspapers and publishers. [1][9] - 1960-12-12
The Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960 came into force. [1][9] - 1961-09-25
The Supreme Court decided the three petitions, holding the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960 invalid as violating Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14. [1][8][12]
The documents
- [1] Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. And Ors. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] Section 18 in The Newspaper (Price And Page) Act, 1956 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] Section 2 in The Newspaper (Price And Page) Act, 1956 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Section 3 (1) in The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Section 1 (1) in The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Section 2 (a) in The Newspaper (Price And Page) Act, 1956 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] Section 3 in The Newspaper (Price And Page) Act, 1956 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] Supreme Court judgment on Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 Web, supremecourtindia.in
- [9] Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. vs Union of India – Supreme Court 1961 Web, supremecourtindia.in
- [10] The Newspaper (Price And Page) Act, 1956 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [11] Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [12] Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India Web, globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 19561961
Benefit to the nationTwo-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 governmentElectoral system and reserved seats
1961
Benefit to the nationTwo-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 governmentRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyThis 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]
The documents
- [1] Section 1 in The Two-Member Constituencies (Abolition) Act, 1961 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] Section 1340 in The Two-Member Constituencies (Abolition) Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] Section 3 in The Two- Member Constituencies (Abolition) Act, 1961 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Section 2 in The Two-Member Constituencies (Abolition) Act, 1961 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Section 5 in The Two- Member Constituencies (Abolition) Act, 1961 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Section 5 (b) in The Two-Member Constituencies (Abolition ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] Section 2 (a) in The Two- Member Constituencies (Abolition ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] TWO MEMBER CONSTITUENCIES (ABOLITION) ACT, 1961 - Lawsisto Web, lawsisto.com
- [9] THE TWO-MEMBER CONSTITUENCIES (ABOLITION) ACT, 1961 - Legal India Web, legalindia.com
- [10] Two-Member Constituencies (Abolition) Act, 1961 | CourtKutchehry Web, courtkutchehry.com
- [11] Section 2 in The Two-Member Constituencies (Abolition) Act, 1961 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [12] Section 2 (e) in The Two-Member Constituencies (Abolition ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [13] Section 47 in The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [14] Section 47 (2) in The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Electoral system and reserved seats
1962
1962
Benefit to the nationConstitution (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 governmentIncorporation of Pondicherry
1962
Benefit to the nationConstitution (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 governmentRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyThis 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]
The documents
- [1] Section 1 in THE CONSTITUTION (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] Section 7 in THE CONSTITUTION (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] Section 4 in THE CONSTITUTION (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Section 4 (1) in THE CONSTITUTION (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Article 239A in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Section 1 in Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] Section 3 in THE CONSTITUTION (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] Section 2 in Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [9] Section 1 (3) in Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [10] Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India - Wikipedia Web, en.wikipedia.org
- [11] Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India - Bharatpedia Web, en.bharatpedia.org
- [12] THE CONSTITUTION (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1962 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Incorporation of Pondicherry1962
Benefit to the nationConstitution (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 governmentGoa, Daman and Diu incorporation
1962
Benefit to the nationConstitution (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 governmentRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyThis 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]
The documents
- [1] THE CONSTITUTION (TWELFTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] Section 8 in THE CONSTITUTION (TWELFTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] Article 240 (2) in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] The Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation, 1962 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] The Goa, Daman And Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] V1Nod Kumar Shantilal Gosalia vs Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] Rev. Mons. Sebastiao Francisco Xavier ... vs State Of Goa on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] Section 1 in THE CONSTITUTION (TWELFTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [9] THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [10] Section 2 in THE CONSTITUTION (TWELFTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [11] Article 240 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [12] Section 5 in THE CONSTITUTION (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1962 Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Goa, Daman and Diu incorporation