What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The new Janata Party government at the Centre, through the Union Home Minister, wrote to state chief ministers directing them to advise their governors to dissolve the state assemblies. The Union government's stated basis was that the state governments needed a fresh mandate from the voters.

What it meant for the country

The record shows that elected state governments were displaced through central action under Article 356, shifting power away from the states.

• Elected state governments in the plaintiff states were to be removed through the Union government's direction to dissolve their assemblies, weakening the states' elected authority and centralising power at the Centre. [1]
• The Supreme Court's 1977 reasoning treated the Union government's assessment that state governments needed a fresh mandate as a ground for resort to Article 356, affecting the constitutional balance between the Union and the states. [1]

Step by step

1. 1977-03-24
   The Janata Party, which had won an overwhelming majority of votes in the Lok Sabha election, formed the new government at the Centre. [1]
2. 1977-05-06
   The Supreme Court decided State of Rajasthan v. Union of India. The court recorded that the plaintiff states challenged the Union government's direction, through the Home Minister's letter, that chief ministers should advise their governors to dissolve the state assemblies. The court held that the dispute was a legal issue arising out of the existence and extent of a legal right and could not be thrown out as merely political or outside Article 131. [1]

The documents

1. [1] State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 6 May ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] K.T.M.S. Abdul Cader And Ors. vs The Union Of India on 23 March, 1977 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Rao Birinder Singh vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 March, 1968 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Article 356 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] M. Karunanidhi vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1979 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The Government of India announced on 19 February 1979 that it would bring a law to constitute Special Courts for offences committed by people holding high political and public office during the Emergency. Parliament then passed the Special Courts Act, 1979, dated 16 May 1979, whose preamble says Commissions of Inquiry reports had disclosed prima facie evidence of such offences.

What it meant for the country

The records show a special court law was made and later listed as repealed, but they give no numbers of people tried, convicted or acquitted, no money figures and no court ruling, so the consequences are unclear.

• No document in the available records states how many people were tried, convicted, acquitted or imprisoned under the Act, or whether any special court was actually constituted. [1][6]

Step by step

1. 1979-02-19
   The President's Address to Parliament says the Government proposes to bring forward legislation to constitute Special Courts for trial of offences committed by persons holding high political and public office during the Emergency. [3]
2. 1979-05-16
   The Special Courts Act, 1979 (Act No. 22 of 1979) is made. Its preamble states that Commissions of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, had reported prima facie evidence of offences by persons who held high public or political offices and others during the Emergency from 25 June 1975. [6][1]

The documents

1. [1] Section 180 in The Special Courts Act, 1979 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 180 in The Special Courts Act, 1979 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] PDF 108_01_19021979 - PRS Legislative Research Research, prsindia.org
4. [4] The Special Courts Act, 1979 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] The Special Courts Act, 1979 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Special Courts Act, 1979 [repealed], India-legitquest Web, legitquest.com

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

Parliament passed the Constitution (Forty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1980, which amended Article 334 of the Constitution to continue reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and representation of Anglo-Indians by nomination in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for a further ten years, up to 26 January 1990. The Act was deemed to have come into force on 25 January 1980.

What it meant for the country

The amendment secured continued legislative representation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Anglo-Indians for another ten years, as documented in the constitutional text and notes.

• The 45th Amendment kept reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and nominated Anglo-Indian representation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies in place until 26 January 1990, as stated in the Indian Kanoon note on Article 334. [3]
• Later amendments extended Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe reservation to 2030, while Anglo-Indian representation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies ended after seventy years, in 2020, under the current Article 334. [3]

Step by step

1. 1969
   The Constitution (Twenty-third Amendment) Act, 1969 amended Article 334 to replace the words "twenty years" with "thirty years", extending reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Anglo-Indian representation by nomination for a further ten years. [1]
2. 1980
   The Constitution (Forty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1980 extended the period of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and representation of Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for a further ten years, up to 26 January 1990. [3]
3. 1980-01-25
   The Constitution (Forty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1980 was deemed to have come into force on 25 January 1980. [2]
4. 1989
   The Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Act, 1989 extended the period of reservation to 2000. [3]
5. 1999
   The Constitution (Seventy-ninth Amendment) Act, 1999 extended the period of reservation to 2010. [3]
6. 2009
   The Constitution (Ninety-fifth Amendment) Act, 2009 extended the period of reservation to 2020. [3]
7. 2019
   The Constitution (One Hundred and Fourth Amendment) Act, 2019 extended reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to 2030. The current Article 334 provides that Anglo-Indian representation in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies ceased after seventy years, in 2020. [3]

The documents

1. [1] THE CONSTITUTION (TWENTY-THREE AMENDMENT) ACT, 1969 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 1 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1980 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Article 334 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 2 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1980 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Article 45 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 45 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1978 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Article 243T in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Need To Provide Reservation To Anglo Indian Community In ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Jagdish Saran & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 January, 1980 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Saurashtra Cement Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And 3 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Hamsaanandini Nanduri vs Union Of India on 17 March, 2026 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Article 334 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament enacted the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which came into force on 25 October 1980, replacing the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Act, by its Section 2, bars state governments and other authorities from ordering that a reserved forest cease to be reserved, that forest land be used for any non-forest purpose, that forest land be leased to any private person or body, or that naturally grown trees be cleared for reafforestation, except with the prior approval of the Central Government.

What it meant for the country

The Act and its judicial interpretation centralised control over forest land diversion and, as the Supreme Court held, extended its protection to all forests irrespective of ownership.

• State governments lost the power to unilaterally de-reserve forests or divert forest land; the Central Government's prior approval became mandatory for any non-forest use, including the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants, and for mining. [1][2]
• The Supreme Court, as recorded in Sheikh Nizamuddin, directed that all ongoing activity within any forest in any State without the prior approval of the Central Government must cease forthwith, extending to the running of saw mills, veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral. [4]
• The law's protection was judicially extended beyond government-owned or statutorily reserved forests to all forests, including any area recorded as forest in Government record, irrespective of ownership or classification. [4]
• A person aggrieved by a State Government order under Section 2 gained a statutory right of appeal to the National Green Tribunal, established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. [2]

Step by step

1. 1980-10
   The Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance No. 17 of 1980) was issued, preceding the Act. [1][3]
2. 1980-10-25
   The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was deemed to have come into force. Section 1 provides that the Act extends to the whole of India. [1]
3. 1997
   As reported in the Sheikh Nizamuddin judgment, the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India held that the Act was enacted to check further deforestation which results in ecological imbalance, and that its provisions must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification. The Court stated that 'forest land' in Section 2 includes any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of ownership. [4]
4. 2010
   Section 2-A of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order or decision of a State Government or other authority made under Section 2, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, may file an appeal to the National Green Tribunal. [2]
5. 2024-01-19
   The Supreme Court in Sheikh Nizamuddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh reiterated that the Act was enacted to check further deforestation, and quoted the Godavarman holding that the Act applies to all forests irrespective of ownership or classification. The Court recorded the direction that all ongoing activity within any forest without the prior approval of the Central Government must cease forthwith, and that running saw mills, veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes not permissible without central approval. [4]

The documents

1. [1] The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 2 in The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] G. Raghava Das And Etc. Etc. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Sheikh Nizamuddin vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2024 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 4 in The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 3C in The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026