What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The government declared an Emergency citing “internal disturbance”, suspended the right to go to court for basic rights, and jailed people under MISA, a law that allowed jailing a person without trial. It censored newspapers, changed the Constitution to limit the courts, and ran a sterilisation drive (an operation after which a person cannot have children). Elections were held in March 1977, Congress lost, and the Emergency was lifted on 21 March 1977.

What it meant for the country

A commission of inquiry found the Emergency was not justified, and official records show mass detention without trial, press censorship and deaths linked to the sterilisation drive.

• 1,10,806 people were detained without trial, 34,988 of them under MISA, according to the Shah Commission. [7][1]
• Sterilisations rose from 26.42 lakh in 1975–76 to 81.32 lakh in 1976–77. The Shah Commission recorded 1,774 deaths linked to the operations and 548 complaints that unmarried people had been sterilised, as stated in the Government of India factsheet. [1]
• 25,962 government and public-sector employees were forcibly retired, as stated in the Government of India factsheet. [1]
• The 42nd Amendment extended the term of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies from five years to six and cut the powers of the higher courts, as stated in the Government of India factsheet. [1]

Step by step

1. 1975-06-12
   The Allahabad High Court rules that Indira Gandhi misused government machinery in her 1971 election campaign, and bars her from elected office for six years. [1]
2. 1975-06-24
   The Supreme Court lets her remain Prime Minister while her appeal is heard, but she cannot vote in Parliament. [2]
3. 1975-06-25
   The President signs the Emergency proclamation. Opposition leaders, activists and journalists are arrested. [1][8]
4. 1975-06-26
   All newspapers are put under censorship. The next day the right to go to court for basic rights is suspended. [1]
5. 1975-11-07
   The Supreme Court strikes down the part of the 39th Amendment that tried to put the Prime Minister's election beyond the reach of the courts. [5]
6. 1976-04-19
   As reported by The Week and ThePrint, police fire on people protesting against house demolitions at Turkman Gate, Delhi. Police acknowledged six deaths. [9][10]
7. 1976-04-28
   The Supreme Court rules in ADM Jabalpur that detained persons cannot approach the courts during the Emergency. [3]
8. 1977-03-21
   After Lok Sabha elections on 16–20 March, the Emergency is lifted. The Janata Party forms the government. [1]
9. 1978
   The Shah Commission gives its three reports. Parliament passes the 44th Amendment to make a repeat harder. [6][4]
10. 2017-08-24
    A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the Puttaswamy case, overrules the ADM Jabalpur judgment. [11]

The documents

1. [1] Factsheet: The Emergency in India (24 June 2025) Official, Press Information Bureau, Government of India
2. [2] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, order of 24 June 1975 Court, Supreme Court of India (via Indian Kanoon)
3. [3] Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla, 28 April 1976 Court, Supreme Court of India (via Indian Kanoon)
4. [4] The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 Parliament, Parliament of India (text via Indian Kanoon)
5. [5] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, judgment of 7 November 1975 Court, Supreme Court of India (via Indian Kanoon)
6. [6] Shah Commission of Inquiry: Third and Final Report, 6 August 1978 (as laid before Parliament) Parliament, Parliament Digital Library
7. [7] The constitutional sanction for preventive detention reeks of a fear of freedom Research, Supreme Court Observer
8. [8] The 1975 Emergency's brutal record: what the Shah Commission revealed Press, The Sentinel
9. [9] Gory Gate Press, The Week
10. [10] For displaced residents of old Delhi's Turkman Gate, Jahangirpuri is flashback to 1976 horror Press, ThePrint
11. [11] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, 24 August 2017 Court, Supreme Court of India (via Indian Kanoon)
12. [12] Govt to observe June 25 as Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas (12 July 2024) Official, All India Radio News
13. [13] Delhi High Court dismisses PIL challenging Centre declaring June 25 as Samvidhan Hatya Diwas Press, Deccan Herald

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

Indian Oil Corporation floated the tender on 18 January 1980. The Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings examined the contract and raised doubts about the award to Kuo Oil and the bypassing of the Empowered Committee. The Delhi High Court dismissed the private complaint, holding no case to answer was made out.

What it meant for the country

The court record does not establish a quantified loss; it notes that a higher-rate contract would result in extra payment by the Government, but no amount was determined.

• The Delhi High Court observed that giving a contract at rates higher than prevailing rates would result in extra payment by the Government, but it did not determine any amount. [1][2]
• The court also said it was not known what amount of profit the Indian agent actually made. [1][2]

Step by step

1. 1980-01-18
   Indian Oil Corporation floated a tender for the supply of 500,000 tonnes of high speed diesel to be delivered from March 1980 to December 1980. [1][2]
2. 1982-06
   The Indian Express published a series of articles by Arun Shourie about the deal; the complaint was mainly based on these articles and the Forty-seventh Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings. [1][2]
3. 1982-09-03
   Nirmala Parsad was examined on oath and the case was adjourned for remaining evidence. [1][2]
4. 1983-04-18
   The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction and that no case for interference was made out. [1][2]

The documents

1. [1] People Patriotic Front, New Delhi vs K.K. Birla And Others on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] People'S Patriotic Front vs K.K. Birla And Ors. on 18 April, 1983 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Management Of Lndian Oil Corporation ... vs Its Workmen on 24 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Juggilal Kamlapat Oil Mills vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Dharam Chand Gupta vs Indian Oil Corporation ... - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] State Of Karnataka vs Union Of India & Another on 8 November ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Prag Ice And Oil Mills And Anr. Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Prag Ice & Oil Mills & Anr. Etc vs Union Of India on 21 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Long-playing record | India News - Times of India Press, timesofindia.indiatimes.com
11. [11] Oil And Natural Gas Commission vs State Of Bihar And Others ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Kiritkumar Gandalal Shah vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 30 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
13. [13] Anita Kumari Shah vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org
14. [14] Action Taken Statement Of The Committee On Public ... Court, indiankanoon.org
15. [15] Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Karem Zaheer Yar Jung And ... Court, indiankanoon.org
16. [16] Shaji Kuriakose And Anr vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
17. [17] M/S. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs Indian Oil Corporation ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The central government framed the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, requiring declarations of vacant land within ninety days and prescribing forms for surrendering excess land and for transfers needing the competent authority's permission. The central legislature passed the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which cancelled the 1976 Act while saving land already vested and possessed by state governments, saving exemption orders and payments made under section 20, and providing that un-possessed land for which the State had paid would not be restored without a refund.

What it meant for the country

The cited texts record that the 1976 ceiling law was repealed while completed state takeovers of land and exemptions already granted were kept in force, but they give no figures for land acquired, people affected or money paid, so the consequences are unclear.

• The repeal ended the ceiling-and-acquisition mechanism, so the legal tool for preventing concentration of urban land ceased to operate from 22 March 1999, except for land whose possession the State had already taken. [1][2]
• People whose land had already been taken over by state governments, or who had paid for exemptions, were left in the same position: the repeal kept those actions intact and kept exemption orders valid even against any judgment of a court to the contrary. [1][2]
• The cited sources give no figures for land acquired, people affected or money paid, so the measurable consequences of the 1976 Act and its repeal are not documented in the evidence provided. [1][3]

Step by step

1. 1976
   The Central Government made the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 under section 46(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 1976). The Rules required every person holding vacant land to make a declaration under section 21(1) within ninety days of the Act's commencement, in Form V. They prescribed forms for particulars of land held in ten categories (owner, tenant, mortgagee, holder under an irrevocable power of attorney, hire purchase, private trust, Hindu undivided family, housing co-operative society, and others) and required the competent authority's permission under section 27 for transfers. The fee for a section 21(1) declaration was Rs. 10. [3][6]
2. 1999-03-22
   The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, dated 22 March 1999, came into force. Section 2 repealed the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 1976). The repeal did not affect: the vesting of vacant land under section 10(3) where possession had already been taken by the State Government or an authorised person or the competent authority; the validity of exemption orders under section 20(1) or any action taken under them, notwithstanding any judgment of any court to the contrary; or any payment made to the State Government as a condition for exemption under section 20(1). Where land was deemed vested under section 10(3) but possession had not been taken, and the State Government had paid an amount for it, the land would not be restored unless the amount paid was refunded to the State Government. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Ordinance, 1999 was itself repealed, with anything done under it saved as if done under the Repeal Act. [1][2]

The documents

1. [1] The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Rules, 1976 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 1 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 2 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 1 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Rules, 1976 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament enacted the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977. The Act omitted articles 31D, 32A, 131A, 144A, 226A and 228A of the Constitution and amended articles 145, 226, 228 and 366. It also provided that pending cases would be dealt with as if the omitted articles had been removed from 1 February 1977.

What it meant for the country

The 43rd Amendment removed restrictions on judicial review that had caused hardship and delays, restoring the courts' power to examine the constitutionality of laws.

• The Act's statement of objects and reasons records that the 42nd Amendment articles caused hardship to persons living in distant parts of India, led to multiplicity of proceedings, and resulted in valuable judicial time being lost. [1]
• The repeal of Article 31D restored civil liberties and legislative powers to the states, and restored the judiciary to its proper place, according to the Act's explanatory note. [3]
• The Supreme Court regained jurisdiction to declare state laws unlawful. [3]

Step by step

1. 1977
   Parliament enacted the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, omitting articles 31D, 32A, 131A, 144A, 226A and 228A and amending articles 145, 226, 228 and 366. [1]
2. 1977-02-01
   The articles inserted by the 42nd Amendment that restricted judicial review (32A, 131A, 144A, 226A and 228A) were brought into force. [1]

The documents

1. [1] THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 1977 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 1 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 1977 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 11 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 1977 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 5 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 1977 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 4 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 1977 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 8 (1) in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026