What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

Parliament enacted the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982. It inserted clause (29A) into Article 366 to widen the meaning of 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods' to cover works contracts, hire-purchase, the transfer of the right to use goods, supply of goods by unincorporated associations to members, and the supply of food or drink. It also added taxes on consignment of goods to Article 269. The validation section deemed earlier food-and-drink tax laws always valid, blocked refunds of taxes already collected, and kept recoveries in place, with exemptions where such tax had not been collected (restaurants and eating houses from 7 September 1978, others from 4 January 1972).

What it meant for the country

The documents record that the amendment helped augment state revenues considerably, while the Supreme Court upheld it and limited states' taxing power over inter-State transactions.

• The Act's own statement of objects and reasons said the proposed amendments would help in the augmentation of State revenues to a considerable extent. [2]
• The validation provisions deemed taxes already collected on the supply of food or drink to be validly levied and collected and barred refund suits, so amounts collected under those laws were retained rather than refunded. [1]
• The Supreme Court limited the states' power: a state cannot tax a deemed sale of goods in a works contract if it is a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, a sale outside the State, or a sale in the course of import or export; tax is leviable only on the value of the goods involved, after deducting labour and service charges. [7]

Step by step

1. 1982
   Parliament enacted the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982. It inserted clause (29A) into Article 366, defining 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods' to include tax on transfer of property in goods for consideration, transfer of property in goods involved in works contracts, delivery of goods on hire-purchase or instalments, transfer of the right to use goods, supply of goods by an unincorporated association to a member, and supply of food or any drink by way of or as part of any service. Such transfers, deliveries or supplies are deemed to be a sale and a purchase. [1][4]
2. 1982
   The Amendment also inserted sub-clause (h) in Article 269(1) to include taxes on the consignment of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. [1]
3. 1982
   The Act validated earlier state laws taxing the supply of food or drink: it deemed such taxes always to have been validly levied and collected, barred suits and proceedings for refund of taxes already collected, and provided for recovery of uncollected amounts. It exempted supplies of food or drink where tax had not been collected (restaurants and eating houses from 7 September 1978; other supplies from 4 January 1972), with the burden of proving non-collection on the person claiming the exemption. [1]

The documents

1. [1] THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1982 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 13 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1982 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 14 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1982 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 9 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1982 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 8 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1982 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 9 (iii) in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Builders' Association Of India vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament enacted the Act in 1983 under the Indira Gandhi government. The Supreme Court held the Act and the 1984 Rules ultra vires and struck them down, directing that adequate tribunals be established under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

What it meant for the country

The record shows the Act was harmful: the Supreme Court found it was the biggest hurdle and main impediment to identifying and deporting illegal migrants in Assam, and its removal restored the Foreigners Act framework.

• The Supreme Court held that the IMDT Act and rules had created the biggest hurdle and were the main impediment or barrier in the identification and deportation of illegal migrants, and struck down the Act. [4][6][7]
• Under the Act, the burden of establishing that a person was an illegal migrant lay on the complainant or referring authority, making detection of illegal migrants practically impossible, unlike the Foreigners Act, 1946 which placed the burden on the person. [2]
• After the judgment, detection of foreigners in Assam reverted to the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) framework, restoring the reverse burden of proof. [7]
• The Court held that large-scale illegal migration into a State can amount to external aggression under Article 355, and that the Union's duty under Article 355 is enforceable. [2][7]

Step by step

1. 1983
   Parliament enacted the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983. [3][6]
2. 1984
   The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 were in force under the Act and were later challenged. [5]
3. 2000
   Sarbananda Sonowal filed Writ Petition (C) No. 131 of 2000 under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the IMDT Act and the 1984 Rules. [5][10]
4. 2005-07-12
   The Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India declared the IMDT Act and the Rules made under it ultra vires the Constitution and struck them down. The Court directed the establishment of adequate tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. [9][11][2][7]
5. 2006-02-10
   The Central Government issued the Foreigners (Tribunals) Amendment Order, 2006, rendering the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 inapplicable to Assam. [1]

The documents

1. [1] Sarbananda Sonowal (Ii) v. Union Of India - CaseMine Court, casemine.com
2. [2] Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India | LawStories Web, lawstories.in
3. [3] Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 explained Web, everything.explained.today
4. [4] Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 Web, en.bharatpedia.org
5. [5] Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union Of India And Another - CaseMine Court, casemine.com
6. [6] Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 - Wikipedia Web, en.wikipedia.org
7. [7] Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) Web, deepmentor.co
8. [8] Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 July, 2005 Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] PDF Answer - eparlib.sansad.in Parliament, eparlib.sansad.in
10. [10] Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India on 5 December, 2006 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] PDF Answer - eparlib.sansad.in Parliament, eparlib.sansad.in

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

Parliament enacted the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 on 8 December 1983, replacing the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Ordinance, 1983 which the President had promulgated on 15 October 1983. The Act allows the Governor of Punjab, the Administrator of Chandigarh, or the Central Government to declare any area 'disturbed' and gives armed forces personnel the power to fire upon people, destroy positions, arrest without warrant, search without warrant, and stop, search and seize vehicles.

What it meant for the country

The documents establish what powers the Act conferred but contain no official figures on deaths, detentions, searches or other consequences flowing from its use, so the impact is unclear.

• Armed forces personnel were empowered by the Act to fire upon and kill persons in disturbed areas without prior judicial review, arrest without warrant, and search premises by breaking locks, expanding coercive powers of the state in Punjab and Chandigarh. [16][14][4]
• As per lawgratis.com, the Act has been criticised for alleged violations of civil liberties and human rights abuses, and the Supreme Court has discussed the scope and limitations of armed forces' powers under special powers acts. [8]

Step by step

1. 1983-10-07
   The President promulgated the Punjab Disturbed Areas Ordinance, 1983 (5 of 1983) and the Chandigarh Disturbed Areas Ordinance, 1983 (6 of 1983) to deal with what the Statement of Objects and Reasons describes as 'the extraordinary situation which had arisen in Punjab and Chandigarh, as a result of the terrorist activities of the extremists; terrorists and secessionist elements in Punjab and Chandigarh'. [16]
2. 1983-10-15
   The President promulgated the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Ordinance, 1983 (9 of 1983) to enable law-enforcing agencies to seek the assistance of the armed forces in disturbed areas of Punjab and Chandigarh. The Act is deemed to have come into force on this date. [16][13][4]
3. 1983-12-08
   Parliament enacted the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 (Act No. 34 of 1983). Sections of the Act give armed forces personnel power in a disturbed area to fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against persons contravening prohibitions on assembly of five or more persons or carrying weapons; destroy arms dumps, fortified positions or shelters used for armed attacks; arrest without warrant persons who have committed or are suspected of committing a cognizable offence; enter and search premises without warrant; and stop, search and seize vehicles or vessels. [5][6][16][14]
4. 1983-12-08
   The Act repealed the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Ordinance, 1983 (9 of 1983), with a saving clause that anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance is deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act. [10][12][16]

The documents

1. [1] The Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 Official, thc.nic.in
2. [2] The Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 Official, indiacode.nic.in
3. [3] Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 Court, advocatekhoj.com
4. [4] The Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, … Web, courtbook.in
5. [5] THE ARMED FORCES (PUNJAB AND CHANDIGARH) SPECIAL … Web, justkanoon.com
6. [6] The Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 Web, indiacode.ecourtsindia.com
7. [7] The Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 Web, law4u.in
8. [8] The Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983 Web, lawgratis.com
9. [9] India Code: Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers … Official, indiacode.nic.in
10. [10] Repeal and saving. | Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1983 Court, advocatekhoj.com
11. [11] Section 8 in The Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special … Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Section 8 in The Armed Forces (Punjab And Chandigarh) Special … Court, indiankanoon.org
13. [13] The Armed Forces Punjab and Chandigarh Special Powers Act 1983 … Web, sooperkanoon.com
14. [14] Section 4 in The Armed Forces (Punjab And Chandigarh) Special Power Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org
15. [15] Section 4 in The Armed Forces (Punjab And Chandigarh) Special … Court, indiankanoon.org
16. [16] The Armed Forces (Punjab And Chandigarh) Special Power Act, 1983 Court, indiankanoon.org
17. [17] act 034 of 1983 : Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special … Court, casemine.com
18. [18] The Armed Forces Punjab and Chandigarh Special Powers Act 1983 … Web, sooperkanoon.com

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The Government of India, under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, agreed to a settlement of US$470 million with Union Carbide Corporation, which the Supreme Court recorded on 14 February 1989. Warren Anderson was arrested on 7 December 1984 and released on bail the same day by Bhopal Police on a personal bond of ₹25,000; he then left India and never returned. The Supreme Court quashed all criminal proceedings on 14–15 February 1989, then restored them on 3 October 1991.

What it meant for the country

The disaster left 15,000 people dead and over five lakh injured or permanently disabled, and the man identified as the primary accused left India after being released on bail and never returned to face trial.

• The Delhi court recorded that the disaster left 15,000 people dead and over five lakh injured or permanently disabled. [2]
• Warren Anderson, shown as Accused No. 1 and the primary accused, left India after executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 and never returned to face trial; summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants and a proclamation in the Washington Post all failed to secure his presence. [2]
• Union Carbide Corporation agreed to pay US$470 million to the Union of India in settlement of all claims, rights, and liabilities relating to and arising out of the disaster. [7][8]
• The Supreme Court quashed all criminal proceedings on 14–15 February 1989, then restored them on 3 October 1991, meaning the accused faced trial only after a gap of over two years. [1]

Step by step

1. 1984-12-02
   Between 0030 and 0045 hours on the night of 2–3 December 1984, methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas escaped from tank No. E610 at the Bhopal factory of Union Carbide India Limited. [1]
2. 1984-12-03
   FIR No. 1104 of 1984 was registered at Police Station Hanumanganj, Bhopal, by the Station House Officer suo motu. [1]
3. 1984-12-06
   The case was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). [1]
4. 1984-12-07
   Warren Anderson (Accused No. 1, Chairman of Union Carbide Corporation) was arrested along with accused Nos. 2 and 3. He was released on bail the same day on execution of a personal bond of ₹25,000 to the satisfaction of Bhopal Police. After executing the bond, he left India and never returned. [1][2]
5. 1987-12-01
   The CBI presented the chargesheet in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, citing 12 accused persons, with Anderson shown as Accused No. 1. [1][2]
6. 1989-02-14
   The Supreme Court recorded an overall settlement of the claims in the suit for US$470 million between the Union of India and Union Carbide Corporation. [8]
7. 1989-02-15
   By orders dated 14 February 1989 and 15 February 1989, the Supreme Court quashed all criminal proceedings relating to and arising out of the Bhopal Gas Disaster. [1]
8. 1991-10-03
   The Supreme Court reviewed its earlier order and restored the criminal proceedings. [1]
9. 1992-01-01
   A proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Anderson was published in the Washington Post, having circulation in Washington D.C., USA. [2]
10. 2004-07-02
    The US Department of State communicated to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, that insufficient material had been sent for Anderson's extradition. [2]
11. 2010-06-07
    The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, passed a detailed judgment in the matter, which the Delhi court later described as conclusive material implicating Anderson through the deposition of various witnesses. [2]
12. 2011-03-23
    The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, allowed the CBI's application for extradition of Warren Anderson, holding there was no bar in law in seeking his extradition from the US authorities. [2]
13. 2023-03-14
    The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Union of India vs Union Carbide Corporation, recording that UCC agreed to pay US$470 million to the Union of India in settlement of all claims, rights, and liabilities relating to and arising out of the Bhopal Gas disaster. [7]

The documents

1. [1] Keshub Mahindra vs State Of M.P on 13 September, 1996 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Rc­3 (S)/84/Acu­I Nd (Cbi vs Warren M. Andeson & Ors.) Dod ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Papers Laid On The Table Of The House By Ministers/Members ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Papers Laid On The Table Of The House By Ministers/Members ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Papers Laid On The Table By Ministers. on 13 December, 2010 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Union Of India . vs M/S. Union Carbide Corporation on 14 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Union Carbide Corporation Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Union Carbide Corporation (Ii) vs Union Of India on 5 April, 1989 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Union Of India vs B.K. Ravichandra on 3 October, 2024 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Supreme Court - Daily Orders - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Shekhar Halva vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2023 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026