What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The Union government set up a commission of inquiry in 1965 under Justice Jivanlal Kapur. The commission examined 101 witnesses over 162 days, reviewed evidence that had not been produced at the trial, and submitted its report in 1969. It concluded that the facts were "destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group."

What it meant for the country

The Kapur Commission recorded a finding of a wider conspiracy involving Savarkar and his group, but the Supreme Court later held that a commission of inquiry's report is only recommendatory and that this finding did not disturb the earlier acquittals, so the report produced no legal consequences on

• The Supreme Court held that a commission of inquiry has no power of adjudication and that its report is purely recommendatory, not enforceable on its own; the Constitution bench declined to act on findings in a Commission of Inquiry report. [2]
• The Supreme Court stated that the Kapur Commission finding about Savarkar and his group "does not in any way interfere with the acquittal" of Savarkar, who had been acquitted at the trial and had died before the report was rendered. [2]
• The Supreme Court declined to enter into the correctness or fairness of the findings of the Kapur Commission report and declined the petitioner's request to review the finding or set up a new commission. [2]

Step by step

1. 1948-01-30
   Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in Delhi. Nathuram Godse was the assassin and was the brother of the author Gopal Godse. [1][2]
2. 1949-06-21
   The Punjab High Court, on appeal, upheld the conviction of five of the accused persons and acquitted two of the accused persons. [2]
3. 1949-11-15
   Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were executed in Ambala Jail. [1]
4. 1965
   The Government of India set up a Commission of Inquiry into the Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi, headed by Justice Jivanlal Kapur, a former Judge of the Supreme Court. The Commission examined 101 witnesses over 162 days; its report ran to six volumes. [2][11][12]
5. 1969
   The Commission submitted its report. Its terms of reference were: (a) the conspiracy of Nathuram Vinayak Godse and others to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi; (b) whether any of such persons had communicated the information to any authorities of the Government of Bombay or of the Government of India, in particular whether Ketkar had conveyed the information to the then Premier of Bombay, Bal Gangadhar Kher, through Balukaka Kanetkar; and (c) what action was taken by the Government of Bombay and the Government of India on the basis of that information. The report found: "All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group." [2][10]

The documents

1. [1] Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The Union Of India And Ors. on 6 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis vs Union Of India Minsitry Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Jain Commission Of Enquiry vs Unknown on 2 July, 1993 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] J. Mohanraj vs Union Of India Rep. By Its Secretary ... on 24 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Sardar Kapur Singh vs The Union Of India on 15 December, 1959 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Pramod Kapur vs Delhi Development Authority on 3 July, 2026 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] S. Kapur Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 15 December, 1959 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960 Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] R. P. Kapur vs Pratap Singh Kairon & Others on 2 August, 1963 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Inquiry Report on Gandhi's Assassination | PDF | Muhammad Ali ... Web, scribd.com
11. [11] Inquiry Report: Gandhi Assassination Conspiracy | PDF | All ... Web, scribd.com
12. [12] India: 1969 Report of Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission of Inquiry ... Web, sacw.net

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The Union government accepted the principle of a linguistic reorganisation of Punjab, set up the Punjab Boundary Commission to recommend boundary adjustments, imposed President's rule in Punjab, and then Parliament passed the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The Act created Haryana and Chandigarh and transferred certain areas to Himachal Pradesh. The Supreme Court rejected challenges to the Act, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a later petition seeking to change the boundaries and remove central control of the Bhakra-Nangal complex.

What it meant for the country

The reorganisation created separate Haryana and Chandigarh and transferred hill areas to Himachal Pradesh, and the Supreme Court upheld the Act, leaving the new boundaries and institutions in place.

• The reorganisation split the existing State of Punjab into two states, Punjab and Haryana, created the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and transferred certain areas to Himachal Pradesh, altering state boundaries and governance for residents. [1][6]
• The Act constituted a Bhakra Management Board under the control of the Central Government to administer the Bhakra Dam, Nangal Dam, irrigation headworks and power houses, and to regulate water and power supply to Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan. [5]
• The existing Punjab Public Service Commission ceased to exist on 1 November 1966, and its chairman and members were assigned to the new Haryana and Punjab Public Service Commissions by order of the President, maintaining continuity of service. [9]
• The Supreme Court's decision settled the legal validity of the reorganisation, so the new state boundaries and legislative arrangements remained in force. [7][11]
• A later High Court petition seeking to enforce the Shah Commission report and transfer Chandigarh and other areas to Haryana was dismissed, leaving the Act's boundaries and central control of the Bhakra-Nangal complex unchanged. [7]

Step by step

1. 1966-03-21
   The Lok Sabha was informed that the government had decided in principle to reorganise the existing State of Punjab on a linguistic basis. [6]
2. 1966-04-18
   The Lok Sabha was informed that necessary legislation would be brought forward after the boundaries of the new states were settled and legislation to amend Article 3 of the Constitution to enable transfer of certain areas to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh was passed. [6]
3. 1966-04-23
   The Government of India published a resolution appointing the Punjab Boundary Commission, also called the Shah Commission, under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Commission was asked to examine the existing boundary of the Hindi and Punjabi regions of Punjab, recommend adjustments for linguistic homogeneity, and indicate boundaries of hill areas contiguous to Himachal Pradesh with cultural and linguistic affinities. Its recommendations were due by 31 May 1966. [7]
4. 1966-07-05
   The President made a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution after expressing satisfaction that the Government of the State of Punjab could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. [7]
5. 1966-09-18
   The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, dated 18 September 1966, was passed by Parliament to reorganise the existing State of Punjab. [1][6]
6. 1966-11-01
   The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, came into force on the appointed day, 1 November 1966. The Act constituted the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and transferred certain areas from Punjab to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. [2][8][11]
7. 1966-11-17
   The Supreme Court in Mangal Singh v. Union of India upheld the validity of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The Court rejected challenges that the constitution of the Haryana Legislative Assembly violated Article 170(1) and that the treatment of Legislative Council members denied equality, holding the Act valid. [7][11]
8. 1970-01-12
   The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Manohar Lal v. Union of India dismissed a petition that sought to declare sections of the Punjab Reorganisation Act void, enforce the Shah Commission report, transfer Chandigarh and certain other areas to Haryana, and remove central control of the Bhakra-Nangal complex. The petition was dismissed without costs. [7]

The documents

1. [1] The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 2 in The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 48 in The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 72 in The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 79 in The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 1305 in The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Manohar Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 January, 1970 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Section 2 in The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Section 85 in The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Section 25 in The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Mangal Singh And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 17 November ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The Union government, through Parliament, enacted the Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 (Act No. 38 of 1966), under which an opinion poll would be held for electors in Goa on whether Goa should merge with Maharashtra or continue as a Union territory, and for electors in Daman and Diu on whether to merge with Gujarat or continue as a Union territory. The President, in consultation with the Chief Election Commissioner, fixed 16 January 1967 as the poll date. The Act placed the poll under the superintendence, direction and control of the Chief Election Commissioner and provided for the result to be declared after counting and published in the Official Gazette.

What it meant for the country

The documents establish that a law was enacted giving electors in Goa, Daman and Diu a formal vote on their future status, but they do not record the poll result or any material consequences.

• The law gave every elector in Goa a formal vote on whether Goa should merge with Maharashtra or continue as a Union territory. [1]
• The law gave every elector in Daman and Diu a formal vote on whether those areas should merge with Gujarat or continue as a Union territory. [1]

Step by step

1. 1966-12-12
   The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 (Act No. 38 of 1966) came into force, by notification of the President under section 1(2) of the Act. [13]
2. 1967-01-16
   Date fixed by the President, in consultation with the Chief Election Commissioner, under section 16 of the Act, for the opinion poll to be taken in relation to Goa and in relation to Daman and Diu. [13]

The documents

1. [1] The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 27 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 26 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 29 (1) in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 29 (1) in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 7 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 33 (2) in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Section 33 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Section 2 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Section 33 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Section 6 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Section 3 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
13. [13] Section 35 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
14. [14] Section 16 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
15. [15] Section 16 in The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The Madras State legislature inserted Section 7A into the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as applied to Madras State (now Tamil Nadu), making self-respect marriages performed by declaration, garlanding or ring exchange, or tying the thali valid without the customary rites and ceremonies of Section 7 [7, 11]. It also gave retroactive validity to such marriages solemnised earlier, subject to exceptions, and deemed their children legitimate [7, 11].

What it meant for the country

The amendment secured legal recognition for non-ritual Hindu marriages in Tamil Nadu, and 12,114 such marriages were reported registered between 2018 and 2024, though a 2023 court ruling excluded secret advocate-office marriages from that recognition.

• The amendment allowed Hindu couples in Tamil Nadu to marry without priests or Vedic rites, by mutual declaration, garlanding or ring exchange, or tying the thali, and made earlier such marriages and their children legally valid [5, 7, 11]. [5][7][11]
• As reported by a non-official source, 12,114 self-respect marriages were registered in Tamil Nadu between 2018 and 2024 [8]. [8]
• A 2023 Madras High Court division bench held that marriages performed secretly in advocates' offices or Bar Association rooms are not valid solemnisation under Sections 7 and 7-A, and that advocates' certificates are not by themselves proof of marriage; it directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take disciplinary action against named advocates and lawyers conducting such marriages [12]. [12]

Step by step

1. 1967
   The Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967 inserted Section 7A into the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Tamil Nadu, recognising suyamariyathai and seerthiruththa marriages performed without priests or Vedic rites [7, 11]. [7][11]
2. 1969
   The Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order, 1969 and its second amendment substituted the word 'Madras' with 'Tamil Nadu' in the Act's text [1, 2, 3, 6]. [1][2][3][6]
3. 2023-05-05
   The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in H.C.P.(MD)No.560 of 2023 held that marriages performed in secrecy in the offices of advocates or Bar Association rooms cannot amount to solemnisation under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, and that certificates issued by advocates are not by themselves proof of solemnisation in a matrimonial dispute [12]. [12]

The documents

1. [1] Section 1 in Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 1 (1) in Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 1 (1) in Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 7A(2)(a) in Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 7A (2) in Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 1 (2) in Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Self-Respect Marriages in Tamil Nadu: Legal Recognition and ... Web, usthadian.com
9. [9] Self-Respect Marriage in Tamil Nadu | PDF | Marriage | Social ... Web, scribd.com
10. [10] Section 7A (2) (a) in Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Section 7A in Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Madras High Court - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026