What governments did, and what it cost the country

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

1. 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]
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]
3. 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]
4. 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]

The documents

1. [1] R. P. Kapur vs Pratap Singh Kairon & Others on 2 August, 1963 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] S. Pratap Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 2 September, 1963 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] R.P. Kapur And Others vs Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon And ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] R.P. Kapur vs Pratap Singh Kairon And Others on 9 August, 1961 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Das Commission Report on Kairon | PDF - Scribd Web, scribd.com
6. [6] The State vs Surinder Singh Kairon on 31 August, 1965 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Sardar Gurmej Singh vs Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon on 30 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] REPORT · R - dspace.gipe.ac.in Web, dspace.gipe.ac.in
9. [9] Haridas Das And Anr vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 16 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Gauri Dutt Bhagwan Das vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Gopi Krishna Das And Anr. vs Anil Bose on 23 July, 1964 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Income-Tax Officer, Award, Sitapur vs Murlitdhar Bhagwandas ... Court, indiankanoon.org
13. [13] R.P. Kapoor vs Pratap Singh Kairon on 6 January, 1965 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

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

1. 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]
2. 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 documents

1. [1] The Official Languages Act, 1963 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 5 in The Official Languages Act, 1963 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 3 (3) in The Official Languages Act, 1963 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 4 in The Official Languages Act, 1963 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 6 in The Official Languages Act, 1963 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 3 in The Official Languages Act, 1963 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Need To Amend The Official Languages Act, 1963 -Laid. on 22 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Section 4 (1) in The Official Languages Act, 1963 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Constituent Assembly Debates On 13 September, 1949 Part I Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] M. Ranka vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By The ... on 21 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Section 4 in The Official Languages Act, 1963 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] The M.P. Official Language Act, 1957 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

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

1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]

The documents

1. [1] Section 3 in THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1964 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 1 in THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1964 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 2 in THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1964 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 49 in THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1964 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 25 in THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1964 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 64 in THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1964 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 2 in THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1964 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Smt Har Naraini Devi And Another vs Union Of India And Others ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] I.C. Golak Nath And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 27 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Section 35 in THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1964 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] I. C. Golaknath & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anrs. (With ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1990 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

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

1. 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]
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]
3. 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]
4. 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]

The documents

1. [1] The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Proposal To Include Certain Social And Economic Offences In ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] P. Nallammal vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 9 August ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Karuna A Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 9 December, 2021 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Satya Narayan Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 September, 2001 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Central Vigilance Commission And Allied Bodies. - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 115 in The Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] K.A.Seralathan vs The Central Vigilance Commission on 27 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Section 25 (b) in the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Section 25 in The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Kamlesh vs Central Vigilance Commission on 20 February, 2025 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Constituent Assembly Debates On 26 August, 1947 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026