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₹60 lakh withdrawn from SBI, mostly recovered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
1971
1971
Harm to the nationMaintenance 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 governmentPreventive detention law
1971
Harm to the nationMaintenance 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 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
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]
The documents
- [1] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] Section 3 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] Section 1 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Section 1 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Section 10 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Section 18 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] Section 7 (1) in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] Satya Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors. on 31 October, 1975 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [9] Jupudi Kesava Rao vs Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao And Others ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [10] Thiru K.N. Rajgopal vs Thiru M. Karunanidhi & Ors on 17 March ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [11] Additional District Magistrate, ... vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [12] Hakam Singh vs M/S. Gammon (India) Ltd on 8 January, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Preventive detention law1971
Harm to the nationMaruti 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 governmentSanjay Gandhi; Indira Gandhi government
1971
Harm to the nationMaruti 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 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
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]
The documents
- [1] S. K. Gupta & Anr vs K. P. Jain & Anr on 30 January, 1979 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] State (Delhi Administration) vs Sanjay Gandhi on 5 May, 1978 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] State Through Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi on 5 May ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Maruti Ltd. (In Liquidation) And ... vs P.R. Sasidharan And ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] 214Th Report On Proposal For Reconsideration Of Judges Case I ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Sanjay Gandhi vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 February, 1978 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] The Haryana State Through Secretary And ... vs Bansi Lal on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] Bansi Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 31 August, 2026 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [9] Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Two Ors. on 31 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [10] Maruti Ltd. And Anr. vs Laxmi Steel Traders And Ors. on 9 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 9 March ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [12] State Of Haryana Through Collector vs Bansi Lal on 9 March, 2009 Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Sanjay Gandhi; Indira Gandhi government1971
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 provenRustom 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 provenRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyInvestigators 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]
The documents
- [1] Shankarlal Agarwalla vs State Bank Of India And Anr. on 19 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] State Bank Of India vs R. K. Jain & Ors on 17 September, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] P.D. Agrawal vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 28 April, 2006 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] State Bank Of India vs Shyama Devi on 5 May, 1978 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] State Bank Of India & Ors vs S.N. Goyal on 2 May, 2008 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Custodial Crimes - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] Prabhavati P. Nagarwala vs H.G. Shah And Anr. And Haresh ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] Ramesh Ratilal Tanna vs Gautam Jayantilal Nagarwala on 4 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [9] Jahid Jabarbhai Nagarwala vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [10] Mansukhlal Tribhovan Joshi vs Nagarwala (J.D.), Inspector ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [11] R.S. Nagarwala vs State on 24 November, 1971 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [12] Nagarwala case - Wikipedia Web, en.wikipedia.org
- [13] Section 176 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [14] Ranchhodbhai Somabhai vs Nagarwala (J.D.), Inspector-General ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [15] Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Gandhi And Ors. on 14 September, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [16] G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa (Will Connected ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [17] Prahladdas Khandelwal vs Narendra Kumar Salve on 11 September ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [18] Zenobia R. Poonawala Nee Ginwalla vs Rustom Ginwalla on 3 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [19] Zenobia R. Poonawala And Anr vs Dr. Rustom Farhad Ginwalla ... Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala and the State Bank of India1971
Benefit to the nationNorth-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971
Before 1971, Manipur and Tripura were union territories, Meghalaya was an autonomous state within Assam, and the Mizo District and North-East Frontier Agency were parts of Assam. Parliament passed the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, which made Manipur and Tripura full states, created Meghalaya as a separate state, and made Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh union territories. The reorganisation took effect on 21 January 1972, and the law remains in force, with later amendments creating separate High Courts for Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura.
A law or decision by the governmentNortheast statehood and union territories
1971
Benefit to the nationNorth-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971
Before 1971, Manipur and Tripura were union territories, Meghalaya was an autonomous state within Assam, and the Mizo District and North-East Frontier Agency were parts of Assam. Parliament passed the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, which made Manipur and Tripura full states, created Meghalaya as a separate state, and made Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh union territories. The reorganisation took effect on 21 January 1972, and the law remains in force, with later amendments creating separate High Courts for Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura.
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 1971, Manipur and Tripura were union territories, Meghalaya was an autonomous state within Assam, and the Mizo District and North-East Frontier Agency were parts of Assam. Parliament passed the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, which made Manipur and Tripura full states, created Meghalaya as a separate state, and made Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh union territories. The reorganisation took effect on 21 January 1972, and the law remains in force, with later amendments creating separate High Courts for Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura.
Who did it
Northeast statehood and union territories
The evidence
- The official India Code entry for the Act lists Part II as 'Establishment of the States of Manipur and Tripura and Formation of the State of Meghalaya and of the Union Territories of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh'. [1]
- The Act's long title states it is to provide for the establishment of the States of Manipur and Tripura, the formation of the State of Meghalaya and of the Union territories of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh by reorganisation of the existing State of Assam. [3]
- The Act was enacted by Parliament on 30 December 1971. [3]
- The reorganisation took effect on 21 January 1972. [8]
- The Act defined 'appointed day' as the day the Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette. [3][6]
Where it stands today
The 1971 Act remains in force as amended. The common High Court arrangement under section 31 ceased to have effect on commencement of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012, which provided separate High Courts for Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura.
What was done
Parliament enacted the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 on 30 December 1971, establishing Manipur and Tripura as states, forming Meghalaya as a state, and making Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh union territories by reorganising the existing State of Assam. The reorganisation took effect on 21 January 1972.
What it meant for the country
The reorganisation gave Manipur and Tripura statehood, created Meghalaya as a state, and made Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh union territories, expanding self-governance in the northeast.
- The reorganisation split the existing State of Assam into multiple units: Manipur and Tripura became states, Meghalaya was formed as a state, and Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh became union territories. [3][8]
- The common High Court at Gauhati was given jurisdiction over Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura; the 2012 amendment later provided separate High Courts for Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura. [3][2]
- The Act amended the Constitution to adjust provisions for the new states and union territories, including Article 244 and the Sixth Schedule. [5]
- Parliamentary constituencies of Manipur and Tripura were continued as constituencies of the new states until the dissolution of the existing House of the People. [9]
Step by step
- 1970-09-03
It was announced in Parliament that the Government had decided in principle to grant statehood to Manipur and Tripura; later, a similar announcement was made for the autonomous State of Meghalaya. [8] - 1971-12-09
The Bill was published in the Gazette of India. [8] - 1971-12-30
Parliament enacted the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971. [3] - 1972-01-21
The reorganisation of the north-eastern region took effect. [8]
The documents
- [1] India Code: North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 Official, indiacode.nic.in
- [2] Section 31 in The North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] The North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Section 1 in The North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Section 71 in The North- Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Section 2 in The North- Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] Section 56 in The North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] Section 1284 in The North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [9] Section 15 (1) in The North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [10] Section 14 (2) in The North- Eastern Areas (Reorganisation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [11] The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [12] Need To Extend Provisions Of Sixth Schedule To The Constitution To The ... Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Northeast statehood and union territories