What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The police arrested Rustom Sohrab Nagarwala on 24 May 1971 and filed a charge sheet within three days; a trial court convicted him, but an appellate court cancelled the conviction and sent the case back for a fresh trial. The Delhi High Court on 24 November 1971 held that the chief cashier, Ved Prakash Malhotra, had no prima facie case of criminal misappropriation against him and refused a joint trial. The Union government set up a commission of inquiry under Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy on 9 June 1977, and it submitted its report on 23 October 1978.

What it meant for the country

The documented record shows the State Bank of India parted with ₹60 lakh in cash on 24 May 1971, and the sources do not record recovery of that amount.

• The State Bank of India's Parliament Street branch handed over ₹60 lakh in cash on 24 May 1971; the sources do not state that the money was recovered. [13]

Step by step

1. 1971-05-24
   Chief cashier Ved Prakash Malhotra of State Bank of India's Parliament Street branch received a telephone call purporting to be from the Prime Minister's principal secretary, then a female voice purporting to be the Prime Minister, and handed over ₹60 lakh in cash to R.S. Nagarwala near Bible House on Parliament Street. [13]
2. 1971-05-24
   Nagarwala was arrested under sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code. [13]
3. 1971-05-27
   Nagarwala made a confessional statement before Shri G. ... (name incomplete in source). [13]
4. 1971-08-09
   Fresh charges under sections 419/420 IPC were framed against Nagarwala after the appellate court set aside his conviction and remanded the case to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate N. Kakkar. [13]
5. 1971-10-05
   Nagarwala moved an application seeking to make chief cashier Malhotra an accused; the trial court found no prima facie case against Malhotra. [13]
6. 1971-11-24
   Delhi High Court ruled that there was no prima facie case of criminal misappropriation against Malhotra and that a joint trial was not required. [13]
7. 1977-06-09
   The Jaganmohan Reddy Commission of Enquiry into the Nagarwala case was set up by notification no. 389(E). [6]
8. 1978-07-19
   Shri Padam Rosha tendered evidence before the commission as CW 108. [6]
9. 1978-10-23
   Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy submitted the commission's report. [6]
10. 2008-12-16
    Central Information Commission ordered Ministry of Home Affairs to provide information about the commission's records under RTI Act 2005, because the information was more than twenty years old. [6]

The documents

1. [1] U.N. R. Rao vs Smt. Indira Gandhi on 17 March, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Ranchhodbhai Somabhai vs Nagarwala (J.D.), Inspector-General ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Ranchhodbhai Somabhai vs J.D. Nagarwala, I.G.P. on 1 July, 1966 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Gandhi And Ors. on 14 September, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Cyrus K. Nagarwala vs Inspector State Excise I- (1) ... on 24 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Shri Padam Rosha vs Ministry Of Home Affairs (Mha). on 16 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] 217Th Report On Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage - Another ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] The Indian Penal Code-Vol I Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Delay And Arrears In Trial Courts - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy vs C.B.I on 9 May, 2013 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] State Of Kerala vs Ouseph And Ors. on 21 September, 1972 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Satyanarain vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972 Court, indiankanoon.org
13. [13] R.S. Nagarwala vs State on 24 November, 1971 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
14. [14] Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy vs Billa Sanjeeva Reddy on 28 January ... Court, indiankanoon.org
15. [15] State Of Karnataka And Anr Etc vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr ... Court, indiankanoon.org
16. [16] Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
17. [17] M/S Nagarwala Construction, Nagpur ... vs Smt. Sunita W/O ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

The Government of India, through the Central Government, framed the Newsprint Policy for 1972–73 under the Newsprint Control Order 1962 and the Import Control Order 1955, setting page limits, circulation restrictions and barring new editions. The Supreme Court, by majority, held the challenged clauses of the Newsprint Control Order and import policy unconstitutional and struck them down, ruling that the government cannot control how much newspapers print or how widely they circulate even in the name of managing a scarce resource.

What it meant for the country

The Supreme Court cancelled a government policy that restricted how many pages newspapers could print and how widely they could circulate, securing press freedom under the Constitution.

• The Supreme Court struck down the newsprint policy, holding that the government cannot control how much newspapers print or how widely they circulate even under the guise of managing a scarce resource like newsprint. [3]
• The ruling reinforced the constitutional safeguard of press freedom under Articles 19 and 14 and set a precedent that a facially economic regulation must be tested by its direct and inevitable effect on fundamental rights. [1][3]

Step by step

1. 1962-01-17
   The Newsprint Control Order, 1962 came into force under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, restricting the acquisition, sale and consumption of newsprint and requiring an authorisation from the Controller. [6]
2. 1972
   The Central Government announced the Newsprint Policy for 1972–73, restricting newsprint allocation, newspaper circulation and the starting of new editions. [1][2][3][5]
3. 1972-10-31
   The Supreme Court, by majority, struck down the impugned clauses of the Newsprint Control Order and the newsprint import policy as unconstitutional, holding they violated the freedom of speech and expression including freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a). Reported as AIR 1973 SC 106; (1972) 2 SCC 788. [1][3][5]
4. 1996
   Clause 3 and Schedule II of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962 were omitted by the Newsprint Control (Amendment) Order, 1996, removing the restriction on acquisition, sale and consumption of newsprint. [7]

The documents

1. [1] Bennett Coleman v. Union of India: Upholding Freedom of the Press in ... Court, casemine.com
2. [2] Bennett Coleman Case: Press Freedom Landmark - Scribd Web, scribd.com
3. [3] Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India · Samvidhan Web, samvidhan.co.in
4. [4] Bennett Coleman vs Union of India [Bennett Coleman Case] Web, lawbhoomi.com
5. [5] Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors ... Web, juris-codex.com
6. [6] The Hindustan Times Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Sh. Gautam Jain And Anr. vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Balaji Cellulose Products Ltd vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 7 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Rama Newsprint And Papers Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. And Cus ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Dy. Chief Controller Of Imports & ... vs K. T. Kosalram & Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Probhudas Morarjee Rajkotia & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
13. [13] Mr. T.R. Mehra vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Customs, ... on ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The Central Government enacted the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. Under it, shares of every Indian insurance company vested in the Central Government, a General Insurance Corporation of India was formed, and schemes merged existing companies into four acquiring companies. In 2002, the Central Government amended the Act to make the Corporation a reinsurer and transferred its shares in the four companies to itself.

What it meant for the country

The sources establish a state monopoly over general insurance and its later modification, but give no figures on money, employment, rights or other consequences, so the overall effect is unclear.

• Private insurers were excluded: on and from the appointed day, certificates of registration under the Insurance Act granted to any insurer other than the Corporation and the acquiring companies ceased to have effect. [2]
• From 2002, the General Insurance Corporation of India ceased to carry on general insurance business, and its functions under section 18 were to be performed by the Central Government; shares in the four acquiring companies stood transferred to the Central Government. [4][1]

Step by step

1. 1972
   The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 was enacted. It transferred all shares in every Indian insurance company to the Central Government free of trusts, liabilities and encumbrances, and provided for formation of the General Insurance Corporation of India. [1][7][9]
2. 1972
   The Act gave the Corporation and the four acquiring companies the exclusive privilege of carrying on general insurance business in India from the appointed day. Certificates of registration of other insurers under the Insurance Act ceased to have effect. [2][7]
3. 1972
   The Act required schemes of merger to ensure that ultimately only four companies, excluding the Corporation, remained in existence. [5][8]
4. 2002
   The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 2002 changed the Corporation's purpose to carrying on reinsurance business, transferred its shares in National Insurance Company Limited, New India Assurance Company Limited, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and United India Insurance Company Limited to the Central Government, and provided that the Corporation ceases to carry on general insurance business. [4]

The documents

1. [1] The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 24 in The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 18 in The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 16 in The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 3 in The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Section 16 (2) in The General Insurance Business ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Section 4 (1) in The General Insurance Business ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Section 17 in The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] National Insurance Co. Ltd vs General Insurance Dev. Officers ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] K.G. Mathew vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ... on 7 ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The Supreme Court's 13-judge bench decided on 24 April 1973, by 7–6, that Parliament cannot use its amending power under Article 368 to damage or destroy the Constitution's basic structure. It upheld the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 and the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972, which had placed Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, and struck down the concluding part of Article 31C introduced by the 25th Amendment, which had made Parliament's declaration about a law's policy conclusive and immune from court review.

What it meant for the country

The documents record that the ruling secured a lasting limit on Parliament's amending power and preserved judicial review and free and fair elections as basic features: the Court later used the doctrine to strike down Article 329A(4) and clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 — although the

• The doctrine gave courts the power to strike down constitutional amendments that damage core features: the Supreme Court later held Article 329A(4) (special election provisions for the Prime Minister and Speaker) beyond Parliament's amending power because it struck at free and fair elections, and in Minerva Mills held clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 unconstitutional for destroying judicial review and a limited amending power. [3]
• Since 24 April 1973, any law added to the Ninth Schedule by a constitutional amendment is open to challenge in court for damaging the basic structure, though laws added before that date are not, as held by the Supreme Court in Waman Rao. [2]
• Kesavananda Bharati's own property was not protected: the Court upheld the Kerala land reform amendments, so his property claim did not succeed, as reported by The Legal Quorum. [9]

Step by step

1. 1970
   Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970 was filed by His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others against the State of Kerala and another, challenging provisions of the Kerala land reform laws. [1]
2. 1971-12
   Parliament passed the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, which affirmed that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, as reported by The Legal Quorum. [8]
3. 1972
   The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972 was enacted. It added the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Kerala Act 35 of 1969) and the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 25 of 1971) to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. [6][7]
4. 1973-04-24
   The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala on a 13-judge bench. The majority (seven of thirteen judges) held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to damage or destroy its basic structure. The Court upheld the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act and the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, and struck down the last clause of Article 31C introduced by the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, which had given conclusiveness to Parliament's declaration about the policy of a law. [1][2][3][8][9]
5. 1980-05-09
   In Waman Rao v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that constitutional amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 by which Acts and Regulations were added to the Ninth Schedule are open to challenge on the ground that they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution or its basic structure; amendments adding laws to the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 are not open to such challenge. [2]
6. 1980-07-31
   As recorded in Waman Rao, the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India held clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 to be unconstitutional on the ground that they destroyed basic features of the Constitution such as judicial review and a limited amending power. [3]

The documents

1. [1] Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Waman Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 May ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Waman Rao And Ors vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Jayaram Mudaliar vs Ayyaswami And Ors. on 12 April, 1972 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] THE CONSTITUTION (TWENTY-NINTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1972 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 66 in THE CONSTITUTION (TWENTY-NINTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1972 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) - The Legal Quorum Web, thelegalquorum.com
9. [9] Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) Web, thelegalquorum.com
10. [10] Kesavananda Bharati Case: Basic Structure Doctrine and the 7 ... Web, courtdocket.org
11. [11] Keshavananda Bharati Case 1973, Summary, Impacts, UPSC Notes Web, vajiramandravi.com
12. [12] Doctrine of Basic Structure- Kesavananda Bharti Case ... Web, lawarticle.in

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026