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

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.
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₹60 lakh withdrawn from SBI, mostly recovered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The prosecution was withdrawn in 1981 after his own cabinet approved it; the Supreme Court upheld the withdrawal in 1982 and, by 3:2, in 1986.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

1973

1973
Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973
Mysore was a state in India. In 1972, its elected Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council unanimously asked the central government to change the state's name to Karnataka. Parliament passed the Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973, and on 1 November 1973 the state was renamed Karnataka. The law stands and the state continues under that name.
A law or decision by the government
Name of Mysore State
1973
Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973
Mysore was a state in India. In 1972, its elected Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council unanimously asked the central government to change the state's name to Karnataka. Parliament passed the Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973, and on 1 November 1973 the state was renamed Karnataka. The law stands and the state continues under that name.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
Mysore was a state in India. In 1972, its elected Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council unanimously asked the central government to change the state's name to Karnataka. Parliament passed the Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973, and on 1 November 1973 the state was renamed Karnataka. The law stands and the state continues under that name.
Who did it
Name of Mysore State
The evidence
The Act is Act 31 of 1973 and was published in the Gazette of India on 21 August 1973. [1]
Section 3 of the Act says that from the appointed day, the State of Mysore shall be known as the State of Karnataka. [1]
Sections 4 and 5 of the Act amended Article 168 and the First and Fourth Schedules to the Constitution to substitute 'Karnataka' for 'Mysore'. [1]
The President referred the Bill to the Mysore Legislature under the proviso to article 3 of the Constitution, and that Legislature approved the enactment of the Bill by Parliament. [1]
The Mysore Legislative Assembly passed its resolution on 27 July 1972 and the Legislative Council on 5 August 1972. [1]
Where it stands today
No proceedings are pending. The legislative process and name change concluded on 1 November 1973; the Act remains in force and the state continues as Karnataka.
What was done
The Mysore Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council passed unanimous resolutions on 27 July 1972 and 5 August 1972 asking for the name change. The Government of Mysore forwarded these to the central government in August 1972. Parliament passed the Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973, and the state was renamed Karnataka on 1 November 1973.
What it meant for the country
The change was institutional: the state's name was changed from Mysore to Karnataka, and the Constitution and state laws were amended to match.
The Constitution was amended: Article 168 and the First and Fourth Schedules were changed to replace 'Mysore' with 'Karnataka'. [1]
The state's official name changed from Mysore to Karnataka on 1 November 1973. [5][7]
Existing state laws were adapted to the new name; the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 was adapted with effect from 1 November 1973. [2]
Step by step
1972-07-27
The Mysore Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a resolution recommending that the name of the State of Mysore be changed to Karnataka. [1]
1972-08
The Government of Mysore forwarded the resolutions to the Central Government and requested legislation in Parliament to give effect to the name change. [1]
1972-08-05
The Mysore Legislative Council unanimously passed a resolution recommending the same name change. [1]
1973-08-21
The Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973 was published in the Gazette of India as Act 31 of 1973. [1]
1973-11-01
The Karnataka Adaptations of Laws Order, 1973 took effect from this date, and the state was renamed Karnataka. [2][5][7]
The documents
[1] MYSORE STATE (ALTERATION OF NAME) ACT, 1973 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
[2] Section 3 (24) in The Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 Court, indiankanoon.org
[3] State Of Mysore vs Babulal Dungarchand & Co. And Ors. on 16 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
[4] MYSORE STATE (ALTERATION OF NAME) ACT, 1973 - Lawsisto Web, lawsisto.com
[5] Mysore State - Wikipedia Web, en.wikipedia.org
[6] As Karnataka completes 50 years, a look at how the state got ... Web, mangaloretoday.com
[7] Karnataka - Wikipedia Web, en.wikipedia.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Name of Mysore State
1973
Benefit to the nation
Supreme Court on MISA in Sambhu Nath Sarkar, 1973
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA) allowed the government to detain people without trial to protect internal security. During the 1971 Emergency, Section 17A allowed detention beyond three months without the opinion of an Advisory Board for up to two years. Sambhu Nath Sarkar, a West Bengal government employee detained under the Act, challenged this. On 19 April 1973, the Supreme Court held Section 17A unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution. The case ended with that provision struck down.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Validity of MISA provisions
1973
Benefit to the nation
Supreme Court on MISA in Sambhu Nath Sarkar, 1973
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA) allowed the government to detain people without trial to protect internal security. During the 1971 Emergency, Section 17A allowed detention beyond three months without the opinion of an Advisory Board for up to two years. Sambhu Nath Sarkar, a West Bengal government employee detained under the Act, challenged this. On 19 April 1973, the Supreme Court held Section 17A unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution. The case ended with that provision struck down.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled it
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story
A court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA) allowed the government to detain people without trial to protect internal security. During the 1971 Emergency, Section 17A allowed detention beyond three months without the opinion of an Advisory Board for up to two years. Sambhu Nath Sarkar, a West Bengal government employee detained under the Act, challenged this. On 19 April 1973, the Supreme Court held Section 17A unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution. The case ended with that provision struck down.
Who did it
Validity of MISA provisions
The evidence
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was passed on 2 July 1971. [20]
Section 3 of MISA allowed the Central Government or a State Government to order detention to prevent acts prejudicial to the defence of India, security of the State, public order, or supplies and services essential to the community. [1]
Section 17A of MISA allowed detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board for longer than three months, but not exceeding two years, during the Proclamation of Emergency issued on 3 December 1971. [14][15]
Sambhu Nath Sarkar was detained under Section 3(1) of MISA; on 15 April 1972 the State Government confirmed his detention and directed it to continue for three years. [20]
On 19 April 1973, the Supreme Court decided Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal. As reported by a secondary source, it declared Section 17A of MISA unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 22. [20][21]
Where it stands today
The Supreme Court proceedings in Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal concluded on 19 April 1973 with Section 17A of MISA held unconstitutional. No appeal or pending proceeding is recorded in the sources.
What was done
Parliament passed MISA on 2 July 1971. Section 17A allowed detention without an Advisory Board's opinion for up to two years during the 1971 Emergency. The Supreme Court, in Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, held Section 17A unconstitutional.
What it meant for the country
The ruling was beneficial: it removed a provision allowing detention beyond three months without an Advisory Board's opinion, and at least one detained person was released as a result.
Section 17A could no longer be used to detain a person for longer than three months without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board. [20][21]
At least one MISA detenu, Baidya Nath Mandi, was released on 25 April 1973 after the State of West Bengal acted on the Sarkar decision. [13]
When West Bengal issued a fresh detention order against Baidya Nath Mandi on the same grounds, the Supreme Court cancelled it and directed that he be set at liberty on 7 September 1973. [13]
Step by step
1971-07-02
Parliament passed the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. [20]
1971-12-03
The Proclamation of Emergency referred to in Section 17A was issued. [14]
1972-04-15
The State Government confirmed Sambhu Nath Sarkar's detention under MISA and directed that it continue for three years from the date of detention. [20]
1973-04-19
The Supreme Court decided Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal. As reported by a secondary source, it declared Section 17A of MISA unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 22. [20][21]
1973-04-25
After the Sarkar decision, the State of West Bengal directed the release of Baidya Nath Mandi, a MISA detenu, and he was released. [13]
1973-09-07
The Supreme Court quashed (cancelled) a fresh detention order against Baidya Nath Mandi made on the same grounds and directed that he be set at liberty. [13]
The documents
[1] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
[2] Section 7 (1) in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[3] Section 7 (1) (a) in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[4] Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law Court, indiankanoon.org
[5] Section 1 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[6] K.A. Kannappa Chetti vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 19 April, 1973 Court, indiankanoon.org
[7] The Superintendent, Central ... vs Ram Manohar Lohia on 21 January, 1960 Court, indiankanoon.org
[8] Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary ... Court, indiankanoon.org
[9] Khudiram Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 November, 1974 Court, indiankanoon.org
[10] Darbara Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 16 March, 1973 Court, indiankanoon.org
[11] Prabhu Dayal Deorah Etc. Etc vs The District Magisrate, Kamrup & Ors on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
[12] Bablu Hembram And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 28 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
[13] Baidya Nath Mandi vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 7 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
[14] Section 17A in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[15] Section 17A (1) in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[16] Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs Union Of India on 13 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
[17] Section 17A in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[18] Section 17A (1) (a) in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[19] Section 17A (2) in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[20] Sambhu Nath Sarkar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 April, … Court, indiankanoon.org
[21] Supreme Court Ruling on Detention Laws Web, scribd.com
[22] Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Web, juris-codex.com
[23] Sambhu Nath Sarkar vs State of West Bengal - 1973 Supreme (Mad) … Web, supremetoday.ai
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Validity of MISA provisions

1974

1974
Harm to the nation
President's rule in Gujarat, 1974
In early 1974, widespread public agitation in Gujarat demanded the resignation of the state government and the dissolution of the assembly. The Chimanbhai Patel ministry resigned on 9 February 1974, and on the same day the President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, taking over all functions of the state government. The state legislature was dissolved on 15 March 1974, Parliament passed a law giving the President the state's law-making powers, and the President then amended the Gujarat panchayat law. The Supreme Court recorded these events in a judgment on 3 October 1974; the end of President's rule and the next assembly election are not in the provided documents.
Closed without a verdict
President's rule in Gujarat
1974
Harm to the nation
President's rule in Gujarat, 1974
In early 1974, widespread public agitation in Gujarat demanded the resignation of the state government and the dissolution of the assembly. The Chimanbhai Patel ministry resigned on 9 February 1974, and on the same day the President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, taking over all functions of the state government. The state legislature was dissolved on 15 March 1974, Parliament passed a law giving the President the state's law-making powers, and the President then amended the Gujarat panchayat law. The Supreme Court recorded these events in a judgment on 3 October 1974; the end of President's rule and the next assembly election are not in the provided documents.
Closed without a verdict
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
In early 1974, widespread public agitation in Gujarat demanded the resignation of the state government and the dissolution of the assembly. The Chimanbhai Patel ministry resigned on 9 February 1974, and on the same day the President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, taking over all functions of the state government. The state legislature was dissolved on 15 March 1974, Parliament passed a law giving the President the state's law-making powers, and the President then amended the Gujarat panchayat law. The Supreme Court recorded these events in a judgment on 3 October 1974; the end of President's rule and the next assembly election are not in the provided documents.
Who did it
President's rule in Gujarat
The evidence
Article 356 of the Constitution allows the President to assume all or any functions of a state government if satisfied that the government cannot be carried on according to the Constitution. [1][5]
In the first week of January 1974, widespread disturbances broke out in Gujarat and there was public agitation demanding the state government's resignation and dissolution of the assembly. [3]
On 26 January 1974, the Governor of Gujarat promulgated Ordinance 1 of 1974. [3]
On 9 February 1974, the state ministry resigned and the President issued a proclamation under Article 356 assuming all functions of the state government. [3]
On 15 March 1974, the state legislature was dissolved. [3]
Where it stands today
The Supreme Court judgment of 3 October 1974 records the imposition of President's rule and the subsequent delegation of powers; it does not record the revocation of the proclamation or the subsequent assembly election.
What was done
The President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 on 9 February 1974, assuming all functions of the Gujarat government. The state legislature was dissolved on 15 March 1974. Parliament passed the Gujarat State Legislature (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1974, and the President enacted the Gujarat Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1974.
What it meant for the country
The elected state government was replaced by President's rule, the assembly was dissolved, and local panchayat elections were postponed because of disturbances.
The elected Gujarat ministry resigned on 9 February 1974 and the President assumed all functions of the state government, ending elected rule in the state. [3]
The Gujarat Legislative Assembly was dissolved on 15 March 1974. [3]
Elections to taluka and district panchayats were not held when their terms expired on 31 March 1974; the government said disturbances made it not expedient to hold elections. [3]
The President, using powers delegated by Parliament, amended the Gujarat Panchayats Act, affecting local government. [3]
Step by step
1974-01
In the first week of January 1974, widespread disturbances broke out in the State of Gujarat. There was public agitation against the State Government demanding its resignation and the dissolution of the Gujarat Assembly. [3]
1974-01-26
The Governor of Gujarat promulgated Ordinance 1 of 1974. [3]
1974-02-09
The State Ministry tendered its resignation. On the same date, the President of India by a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution assumed all the functions of the State Government. [3]
1974-02-27
By an order issued under section 17(2) as amended by Ordinance 1 of 1974, the terms of the Taluka Panchayats and District Panchayats were again extended up to March 31, 1974. [3]
1974-03-15
The State Legislature was dissolved. [3]
1974-03-27
Parliament passed the Gujarat State Legislature (Delegation of Powers) Act, 11 of 1974, which vested with effect from March 27, 1974 powers of the State Legislature in the President of India. [3]
1974-03-31
The President enacted the Gujarat Panchayats (Amendment) Act 8 of 1974, which came into force on March 31, 1974. [3]
1974-10-03
The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in State of Gujarat vs Jamnadas G. Pabri, recording the above events. [3]
The documents
[1] Article 356 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
[2] Article 356 (4) in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
[3] State Of Gujarat vs Jamnadas G. Pabri And Ors. Etc on 3 October, 1974 Court, indiankanoon.org
[4] Article 356 (4) in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
[5] Article 356 (1) in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
[6] Article 356 (5) in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026
President's rule in Gujarat

1975

1975
Harm to the nation
Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) amendment, 1975
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 allowed the government to detain people without trial. In 1975, during the Emergency, the government amended it to remove the requirement of telling detainees the grounds for their detention and to try to stop courts from reviewing detention orders. The amendment was made by presidential ordinance on 30 June 1975 and a second ordinance on 15 July 1975, and later replaced by an Act of Parliament.
A law or decision by the government
Preventive detention during Emergency
1975
Harm to the nation
Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) amendment, 1975
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 allowed the government to detain people without trial. In 1975, during the Emergency, the government amended it to remove the requirement of telling detainees the grounds for their detention and to try to stop courts from reviewing detention orders. The amendment was made by presidential ordinance on 30 June 1975 and a second ordinance on 15 July 1975, and later replaced by an Act of Parliament.
A law or decision by the government
Read the full story, step by stepHide the full story
This 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 allowed the government to detain people without trial. In 1975, during the Emergency, the government amended it to remove the requirement of telling detainees the grounds for their detention and to try to stop courts from reviewing detention orders. The amendment was made by presidential ordinance on 30 June 1975 and a second ordinance on 15 July 1975, and later replaced by an Act of Parliament.
Who did it
Preventive detention during Emergency
The evidence
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 originally required that grounds of detention be disclosed to the person detained (Section 8). [4]
The President proclaimed an Emergency on 25 June 1975 under Article 352(1) of the Constitution. [8]
On 27 June 1975, the President issued an order under Article 359(1) suspending the right to move court for MISA detentions. [6]
On 30 June 1975, the President promulgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975. [7]
On 15 July 1975, the President promulgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1975. [7]
Where it stands today
The amendment was enacted by the President and Parliament in 1975 and was in force during the Emergency. The High Court judgments cited were delivered in 1975.
What was done
The President promulgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance on 30 June 1975 and the Maintenance of Internal Security (Second Amendment) Ordinance on 15 July 1975. Parliament later passed the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Act, 1975 (39 of 1975). The amendment removed the requirement to record or communicate grounds of detention and added Section 16A(9), which the government argued barred judicial review of detention orders.
What it meant for the country
The 1975 MISA amendment and related orders allowed detention without grounds and suspended the right to move court, as recorded in High Court judgments.
The Presidential Order of 27 June 1975 suspended the right of a person detained under MISA to move any court for enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. [6]
Detainees were held without being served grounds of detention; in Bharti Nayyar, the detenu was arrested on 24 July 1975 and no grounds were served because of the declaration under Section 16A(3). [8]
The Bombay High Court noted that by the amendment to MISA it was no longer necessary to record or communicate grounds of detention to the detenu. [6]
The government argued that no detention under MISA could be judicially reviewed, though the Delhi High Court held that the scope of Section 16A(9) had to be examined in each case. [2]
Step by step
1971
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 came into force. Section 8 required that grounds of detention be disclosed to the person detained. [4]
1975
Parliament passed the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Act, 1975 (39 of 1975), replacing the ordinance. Section 4 of MISA was substituted by this Act. [1][2][8]
1975
The 39th Constitutional Amendment placed MISA in the Ninth Schedule, which the government argued barred all challenges to detentions. [6]
1975-06-25
The President proclaimed an Emergency under Article 352(1) of the Constitution. [8]
1975-06-27
The President issued an order under Article 359(1) suspending the right of a person detained under MISA to move any court for enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22. [6]
1975-06-30
The President promulgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, the first amendment ordinance. It provided that during its operation MISA would have effect subject to the amendments specified, and required review of detentions made on or after 25 June 1975. [7]
1975-07-15
The President promulgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, further amending MISA, including Section 16-A. [7]
1975-08-22
The Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered judgment in P. Venkateseshamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, considering the validity of the 1975 MISA amendment ordinances. [7]
1975-09-15
The Delhi High Court delivered judgment in Bharti Nayyar v. Union of India. The detenu was arrested on 24 July 1975 and no grounds of detention were served because of the declaration under Section 16A(3). [8]
1975-10-09
The Bombay High Court delivered judgment in Krishna Madhaorao Ghatate v. Union of India, noting that by the amendment to MISA it was no longer necessary to record or communicate grounds of detention. [6]
1975-10-31
The Delhi High Court delivered judgment in Satya Sharma v. Union of India, holding that Section 16A(9), added by Ordinance XVI of 1975, did not by itself make all detention orders non-reviewable; its scope had to be examined case by case. [2]
The documents
[1] Section 4 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[2] Satya Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors. on 31 October, 1975 Court, indiankanoon.org
[3] Section 16A in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[4] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
[5] Section 4 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[6] Krishna Madhaorao Ghatate And Anr. vs The Union Of India And ... Court, indiankanoon.org
[7] P. Venkateseshamma vs The State Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 22 August, 1975 Court, indiankanoon.org
[8] Bharti Nayyar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 15 September, 1975 Court, indiankanoon.org
[9] Section 7 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[10] N. Venkat Ramani And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 8 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
[11] Section 19 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
[12] Section 1 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026
Preventive detention during Emergency

What governments did, and what it cost the country

The scams that cost India

Jawaharlal Nehru

Jeep scandal

Mudgal case

Mundhra–LIC scandal

Dharma Teja / Jayanti Shipping

Serajuddin affair (K.D. Malaviya)

Pratap Singh Kairon case

Indira Gandhi

Maruti affair

Nagarwala case

Pondicherry import licences (Tulmohan Ram)

Patna Urban Cooperative Bank case

Indira Gandhi

Kuo Oil deal

Antulay cement scam

Churhat lottery case

Lakhubhai Pathak cheating case

Rajiv Gandhi

Bofors scandal

HDW submarine deal

St Kitts forgery case

P.V. Narasimha Rao

Palmolein import case

Securities scam (Harshad Mehta)

Classik Computer purchase case

JMM MPs bribery case

Sugar import scam

Petrol pump allotments (Satish Sharma)

Government shop allotments (Sheila Kaul)

Telecom equipment scam (Sukh Ram)

Urea import scam

Manmohan Singh · UPA-I

Manesar land acquisition case

Quid-pro-quo investment cases

Iraq oil-for-food allegations

AJL Panchkula plot re-allotment

Antrix–Devas S-band deal

Scorpene submarine deal allegations

2G spectrum allocation

Cash-for-votes

Manmohan Singh · UPA-II

Commonwealth Games contracts

Adarsh Housing Society

Coal block allocations (“Coalgate”)

Delhi airport concessions

Goa illegal mining

Maharashtra irrigation allegations

National Herald / Young Indian

Tatra trucks bribe-offer allegation

Robert Vadra–DLF land deal

AgustaWestland VVIP helicopters

Railway Board cash-for-post

1973

Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973

Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973

Supreme Court on MISA in Sambhu Nath Sarkar, 1973

Supreme Court on MISA in Sambhu Nath Sarkar, 1973

1974

President's rule in Gujarat, 1974

President's rule in Gujarat, 1974

1975

Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) amendment, 1975

Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) amendment, 1975