What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

Parliament enacted the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, including sections 4 and 55. The Supreme Court, by majority, held on 31 July 1980 that both sections were void and beyond Parliament's amending power.

What it meant for the country

The Supreme Court's decision preserved the basic structure doctrine, keeping Parliament's amending power limited and protecting the fundamental rights in Articles 14, 19 and 21 from being overridden.

• The Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot expand its amending power to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or destroy its basic features; a limited amending power is one of the basic features of the Indian Constitution. [1]
• The Supreme Court held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, so they cannot be obliterated by a constitutional amendment. [1]
• The court's power to review constitutional amendments was preserved, because the clause in section 55 that deprived courts of the power to call in question any amendment was struck down. [1][2]

Step by step

1. 1976
   Parliament enacted the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 4 amended Article 31C to give primacy to Directive Principles over the fundamental rights in Articles 14 and 19; section 55 amended Article 368 to remove all limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and to deprive courts of the power to question any amendment. [1][2]
2. 1980-07-31
   The Supreme Court held by majority that sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act are void and beyond the amending power of Parliament, since they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution and destroy its basic structure. [1][2]

The documents

1. [1] Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Minerva Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

This is an allegation. No police case has been registered and no court has found that any offence took place. The claim is that her name was on the voter list, not that she voted: no source we found says she cast a vote before becoming a citizen. The complainant relies on photocopies of voter-list pages; Sonia Gandhi's lawyers say the documents are not genuine.

What it meant for the country

There is an allegation about a voter-list entry, no police case, and no evidence that she voted before 30 April 1983.

• Nothing is established. No police case has been registered and no court has made any finding against Sonia Gandhi. [8][10]
• Her lawyers say that after more than 40 years it is not possible to gather evidence. [7]

Step by step

1. 1980
   According to the BJP and the complainant, Sonia Gandhi's name appears on the New Delhi voter list. This is an allegation based on photocopied list pages. [1][4]
2. 1982
   According to the same allegation, her name is removed from the list. [1][4]
3. 1983-04-30
   She becomes an Indian citizen. The BJP alleges her name had already been entered again in the 1983 list. [1]
4. 2025-08-13
   Amit Malviya of the BJP makes the allegation in public. The Congress responds by accusing the BJP of working with the Election Commission. [2]
5. 2025-09-04
   Vikas Tripathi's request for a police investigation comes before a magistrate at the Rouse Avenue court, Delhi. [3]
6. 2025-09-11
   The magistrate rejects the request. [5][6]
7. 2025-12-09
   The complainant asks a higher court to review that order. The Special Judge sends notice to Sonia Gandhi and the Delhi Police. [6]
8. 2026-02-07
   Sonia Gandhi's reply opposing the request is reported. [7]
9. 2026-09-21
   The Special Judge cancels the magistrate's refusal and sends the matter back for a fresh decision with reasons. The next hearing is fixed for 29 September 2026. [8][9][11]

The documents

1. [1] SIR row: BJP cites Sonia's vote history to push back at Congress and Opposition Press, The Tribune
2. [2] BJP alleges Sonia Gandhi was voter before getting Indian citizenship; Congress hits back Press, Deccan Herald
3. [3] Plea alleges forgery over inclusion of Sonia Gandhi's name in electoral roll, seeks probe Press, Deccan Herald
4. [4] Sonia enrolled in poll roll before she got citizenship, petitioner alleges in Delhi court Press, The Tribune
5. [5] Court reserves order on plea for FIR against Sonia over electoral roll entry Press, The Tribune
6. [6] Delhi court issues notice to Sonia Gandhi on plea for FIR over her voter roll inclusion before becoming citizen Press, Bar and Bench
7. [7] 'Politically motivated': Sonia Gandhi opposes plea over 1980 voter list entry in Delhi court Press, The Tribune
8. [8] Sonia Gandhi electoral roll matter: Court overturns order refusing FIR, remands matter for fresh hearing Press, ANI
9. [9] Delhi court revives case against Sonia Gandhi over alleged voter list forgery; fresh hearing on Sep 29 Press, The Week
10. [10] Delhi Court sets aside Magistrate order in Sonia Gandhi electoral roll case, remands FIR plea for fresh decision Press, India Legal
11. [11] Delhi court remands Sonia Gandhi electoral roll case to magistrate Press, Deccan Chronicle

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

Antulay resigned as Chief Minister on 20 January 1982. The Supreme Court transferred his trial to the Bombay High Court in 1984, then a seven-judge bench in 1988 cancelled that transfer and sent the case back to a Special Court. The Maharashtra government did not appoint a Special Judge for almost two years after the 1988 judgment.

What it meant for the country

The record shows a Chief Minister resigned and the criminal case against him was stalled for years after the Supreme Court cancelled the High Court trial, with no Special Judge appointed for almost two years.

• Antulay resigned as Chief Minister on 20 January 1982 after the Bombay High Court's 23 September 1981 order on cement distribution. [4]
• The Supreme Court's 29 April 1988 judgment made the High Court proceedings after 16 February 1984, including evidence recorded over one year, non est, so the trial had to restart before a Special Court. [1]
• Almost two years after the 1988 judgment, the Maharashtra government had not appointed a Special Judge, leaving the case stalled. [1]
• The complainant had to appear before the Supreme Court in April 1990 to say he was willing to continue the prosecution. [1]

Step by step

1. 1980
   A.R. Antulay was Chief Minister of Maharashtra from 1980 until he resigned on 20 January 1982. [4]
2. 1981-09-11
   A private complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, alleging that Antulay, as Chief Minister, had abused his office. [4]
3. 1981-09-23
   A Bombay High Court Single Judge passed a detailed order granting a rule nisi in Writ Petition No. 1165 of 1981, which challenged the method of distribution of ad hoc cement allotments in Maharashtra. [4]
4. 1982-01-20
   Antulay submitted his resignation as Chief Minister; it became effective the same day. [4]
5. 1983-07-25
   Special Judge R.B. Sule discharged Antulay in Special Case No. 24 of 1982 and Special Case No. 3 of 1983. [4][2]
6. 1984-02-16
   The Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay set aside the discharge and directed that the cases be withdrawn from the Special Judge and transferred to the Bombay High Court for trial. [4][1]
7. 1986-04-17
   The Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay dealt with the framing of charges and said the case would go back to the High Court for trial on the charges framed. [3]
8. 1986-10-29
   The Supreme Court directed that the case be listed before a bench of seven judges. [2]
9. 1988-04-29
   A seven-judge Supreme Court bench quashed all proceedings in the Special Case taken after the 16 February 1984 directions; the case had to proceed before a Special Court under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. [1]
10. 1990-03
    An advocate, Mr More, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court about the case. [1]
11. 1990-04-16
    The complainant told the Supreme Court he wanted to continue the prosecution before a Special Judge to be appointed by the State Government. [1]
12. 1991-12-10
    The Supreme Court noted that almost two years after the 29 April 1988 judgment, the State Government had not appointed a Special Judge, and the record had not been sent to one. [1]

The documents

1. [1] Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 10 December, 1991 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Naik & Ors on 29 October, 1986 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] R.S. Nayak vs A.R. Antulay & Anr on 17 April, 1986 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] R. S. Nayak vs A. R. Antulay on 16 February, 1984 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

A.R. Antulay, as Chief Minister of Maharashtra, controlled the allotment of cement. The Bombay High Court found that he arbitrarily allotted cement from the ad hoc quota to certain builders in return for donations to trusts he had set up, including the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan. He resigned as Chief Minister after the judgment. The criminal prosecution against him reached the stage of charges being framed, but the final outcome is not documented in the sources.

What it meant for the country

A sitting Chief Minister was found by the High Court to have arbitrarily allotted scarce cement in return for donations to his trusts, leading to his resignation and a criminal case that was still unresolved a decade after the first complaint.

• A sitting Chief Minister of Maharashtra resigned from office after the Bombay High Court found the allegations against him justified. [2][5]
• The criminal prosecution remained unresolved for a decade, from the complaint filed in September 1981 to the Supreme Court hearing in December 1991, with the case still pending before a Special Judge. [2]

Step by step

1. 1980
   A.R. Antulay became Chief Minister of Maharashtra, an office he held until January 1982. [2]
2. 1981-09-11
   R.S. Nayak filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay (Criminal Case No. 24 of 1982). [2]
3. 1982-01-12
   The Bombay High Court, in a judgment by Justice B. Lentin, allowed the writ petition and held as justified the allegations that Antulay had arbitrarily allotted cement from the ad hoc quota to certain builders in consideration for donations to two trusts floated by him. [2][5]
4. 1982-01-12
   Antulay resigned as Chief Minister of Maharashtra following the High Court judgment. The Governor accepted the resignation. [2][5]
5. 1982-04-12
   The Bombay High Court dismissed Special Criminal Application No. 1742 of 1981 filed by the complainant. [2]
6. 1982-08-09
   R.S. Nayak lodged a complaint alleging that Antulay, as Chief Minister, had created seven trusts, one of them the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan, and extended favours to those who made donations to the trusts. [4]
7. 1984-02-16
   The Supreme Court, in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, held that a Special Judge can take cognizance of offences on a private complaint, and dismissed Antulay's appeal against the Bombay High Court's decision. [3]
8. 1986-04-17
   The Supreme Court, in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, held that a prima facie case had been established by the prosecution in respect of the allegations, set aside the discharge, and directed that charges be framed. [4]
9. 1988-04-29
   A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court quashed all proceedings in the Special Case taken subsequent to the directions of 16 February 1984, with the result that the case had to be proceeded with before the Special Court under the 1952 Act. [2]
10. 1991-12-10
    The Supreme Court, in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, heard the case concerning the delay in the prosecution. The judgment records that almost two years had passed since the April 1988 decision without the State Government appointing a Special Judge, and the case was still pending. [2]

The documents

1. [1] P.B. Samant And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 12 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 10 December ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] A. R. Antulay vs Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak And Another on 16 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] R.S. Nayak vs A.R. Antulay & Anr on 17 April, 1986 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] January 13, 1982, Forty Years Ago: Antulay resigns | The ... Press, indianexpress.com
6. [6] A. R. Antulay — Grokipedia Web, grokipedia.com
7. [7] Cement Scam - bombaywiki Web, bombaywiki.with.camp

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026