What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The Rajiv Gandhi government and the Assam agitation leaders signed the Assam Accord on 15 August 1985; the accord said the agitation would be called off. Parliament inserted Section 6A in the Citizenship Act, 1955 in 1985 to give effect to the accord.

What it meant for the country

The documents record that the accord ended the Assam agitation and created a special citizenship framework, but they do not state how many people were affected or what happened to them.

• The accord ended the Assam agitation, with AASU and AAGSP calling it off and pledging full cooperation towards the development of the country. [5]
• Section 6A created special citizenship provisions for persons covered by the Assam Accord, including a right for certain persons to declare within sixty days that they did not wish to be citizens of India. [5][6]

Step by step

1. 1985-08-15
   The Memorandum of Settlement known as the Assam Accord was signed in New Delhi between the All Assam Students' Union (AASU), the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP), the Central Government and the State Government, in the presence of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The accord recorded that AASU and AAGSP called off the agitation and assured full cooperation. In pursuance of this accord, Section 6A was inserted in the Citizenship Act, 1955 in 1985. [5]
2. 2014-12-17
   The Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors, a writ petition concerning the Assam Accord and Section 6A. The judgment reproduces the 1985 Memorandum of Settlement and the text of Section 6A, but the provided excerpt does not record the final order. [5]

The documents

1. [1] Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Assam Industril Establishments (Conferment of Permanent ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 15 in The Assam Fire Service Act, 1985 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 15 (1) (iii) in Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 6A (6) (a) in The Citizenship Act, 1955 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 6A (7) in the Citizenship Act, 1955 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Section 6A (6) in The Citizenship Act, 1955 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Section 6A (7) (a) in the Citizenship Act, 1955 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Need To Look Into Problems Being Faced By The People Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Discussion On The Motion For Consideration Of The Rajiv ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 August, 1949 Part Ii Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Shiromani Akali Dal president Harchand Singh Longowal signed the Punjab Settlement on 24 July 1985. Its recorded water clauses protected the existing use of Ravi-Beas water by farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan as on 1 July 1985, sent claims over remaining water to a tribunal, and required the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal to be completed by 15 August 1986. The Union government gave effect to those clauses by inserting Section 14 into the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and constituting the Eradi Tribunal.

What it meant for the country

The documents record that the accord did not end the Punjab conflict or the water dispute: its signatory was assassinated weeks later, the Sutlej-Yamuna canal remained incomplete into 2004, and Punjab passed a law to terminate its Ravi-Beas obligations.

• The accord lost its signatory to assassination within weeks, removing the political figure associated with the settlement from the scene. [5]
• The Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal remained unfinished for years, forcing the Supreme Court on 4 June 2004 to order the Union of India to take control of the canal works and Punjab to hand them over within two weeks. [1]
• Punjab's 2004 law to end its obligations under the 31 December 1981 water arrangement led to a Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court on 22 July 2004, keeping the constitutional dispute alive. [1]

Step by step

1. 1985-03-12
   Sant Harchand Singh Longowal, president of the Shiromani Akali Dal, had been interned in prison after the army action at the Akal Takht and remained there until this date, according to the Supreme Court's later judgment in the case concerning his killing. [5]
2. 1985-07-24
   An accord called the Punjab Settlement was signed by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sant Harchand Singh Longowal; a pact was signed on its basis by the two leaders. [1][5]
3. 1985-07-30
   An attempt was made on Sant Longowal and his comrades when they visited the Golden Temple at Amritsar. [5]
4. 1985-08-20
   Sant Longowal was shot while attending a meeting at Sherpur Gurudwara and died of his injuries at 8.40 p.m. [5]
5. 1986-04-02
   The Union of India issued a notification referring issues of usage and allocation of Ravi-Beas waters to the Waters Tribunal, after Section 14 was added to the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 to give effect to paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 of the Punjab Settlement. [7]
6. 1987-01-30
   The Waters Tribunal submitted its report allocating the Ravi-Beas waters between Punjab and Haryana. [7]
7. 1999-09-14
   The Supreme Court, in the appeal of Gian Singh, recorded that Longowal was shot dead on 20 August 1985 and altered the appellant's sentence under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 to imprisonment for life. [5]
8. 2003-01-13
   The State of Punjab filed a suit in the Supreme Court seeking, among other things, a declaration that the Punjab Settlement (Rajiv-Longowal Accord) was not enforceable in the changed circumstances, and challenging Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. [1]
9. 2004-06-04
   The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to mobilise a central agency to take control of the canal works within one month and directed the State of Punjab to hand over the works to the central agency within two weeks. [1]
10. 2004-07-12
    The State of Punjab enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, terminating and discharging the Government of Punjab from its obligations under the agreement dated 31 December 1981 and all other agreements relating to the waters of the Ravi and Beas. [1]
11. 2004-07-22
    The President of India made a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution in relation to the enactment of the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 by the State of Punjab. [1]

The documents

1. [1] U/A 143 (1) Of The Constitution Of India vs Unknown on 10 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Jatinder Kumar & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 28 September ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Amar Nath Om Prakash And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] State Of Punjab vs Pohu And Anr. on 24 September, 1985 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] State Through Cbi, Delhi vs Gian Singh on 14 September, 1999 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] State Of Haryana vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 4 June, 2004 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Moved The Motion For Consideration Of The Final Report Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] State Of Punjab vs Raj Rani And Ors. on 28 November, 1985 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] State Of Haryana vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 15 January, 2002 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] State Of Punjab vs Bhagwant Singh And Ors. on 22 February, 1985 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

The government constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Ranganath Misra in 1985 to examine the causes of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The Commission received affidavits from victims, including one from Harvinder Singh dated 8 September 1985, and submitted a report confirming the killings of Sikhs. The report found passivity, callousness and indifference on the part of the Delhi police and observed that the police failed to act as a professional force. The Commission indicted police officers. No disciplinary or criminal action against those officers is documented in the sources; as stated in a Lok Sabha debate, the indicted officers were given promotions.

What it meant for the country

The Commission's own findings record that the Delhi police failed to protect Sikh citizens during the 1984 riots, and the officers it indicted were promoted rather than punished, as stated in Parliament.

• Sikhs were killed in Delhi and other parts of the country between 31 October and November 1984, as confirmed by the Commission's report. [17]
• The Commission found passivity, callousness and indifference on the part of the Delhi police, and that the police failed to act as a professional force during the riots. [17]
• Police officers indicted by the Commission were given promotions, as stated in a Lok Sabha debate. [18]
• Cases arising from affidavits submitted to the Commission were closed as untraced by Delhi Police and only reopened in 2015 by a Special Investigation Team constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs. [13]

Step by step

1. 1984-10-31
   Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Riots broke out across the country in which Sikhs were killed in Delhi and other parts of India between 31 October and November 1984. [14][16][17]
2. 1985
   The government appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Ranganath Misra, a Supreme Court judge, to examine the causes of the riots. [14][16][17]
3. 1985-09-08
   Harvinder Singh submitted an affidavit to the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission of Inquiry describing the riots in Delhi. The affidavit recommended registration of two fresh cases. [13]

The documents

1. [1] Hon'Ble Shri Ranganath Mishra vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Rajbir vs State Of Haryana on 1 May, 1985 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] S.P. Sampath Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] H.V. Pardasani, Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 March, 1985 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Bhagat Ram vs Kishan And Ors. on 22 April, 1985 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Rangnath Misra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Need To Set Up A Commission On 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots To ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Need To Set Up Another Commission To Probe 1984 Anti-Sikh ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Need To Declare 1984 Anti-Sikh Riot As A ''Genocide''. on 17 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Need To Declare 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots As Genocide. on 7 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] State vs Sajjan Kumar (Ex. Mp) on 22 January, 2026 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Satnam Singh Gambhir & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 30 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
13. [13] State Through Special Investigation ... vs Sajjan Kumar on 22 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
14. [14] Harjit Singh vs Union Of India (Mohan, J.) on 17 December, 1994 Court, indiankanoon.org
15. [15] Dalip Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 1985 Court, indiankanoon.org
16. [16] Harjit Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 17 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
17. [17] S.S. Ahluwalia vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
18. [18] Regarding Need To Accord Permission By The Govt. To Cbi To ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament passed TADA in 1985 for two years and replaced it with TADA 1987 for eight years. The Supreme Court upheld the 1987 Act's general validity in Kartar Singh (1994) and dismissed Abdul Aziz's challenge to Section 1(4) in 1995. In Gian Singh's case (1999), the Supreme Court altered a death sentence under TADA 1985 to life imprisonment because TADA 1987 provided that alternative.

What it meant for the country

The Act curtailed rights by making speech a 'disruptive activity' punishable with at least five years in prison and by making death the only sentence for some offences, and one accused spent over 14 years in jail before his death sentence was altered to life imprisonment.

• TADA 1985 made death the only sentence for the most serious offence under Section 3(2); Gian Singh was sentenced to death under this provision. [9]
• TADA 1987 defined 'disruptive activity' to include speech that questions the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India or supports secession, punishable with imprisonment of not less than five years up to life. [2][4]
• Gian Singh had been in jail for a period exceeding 14 years when the Supreme Court altered his death sentence to life imprisonment in 1999. [9]
• The Supreme Court upheld TADA 1987's general validity, rejecting claims that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. [10]

Step by step

1. 1985-05-23
   The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 came into force for a period of two years. [9]
2. 1987-05-22
   TADA 1985 expired. [9]
3. 1987-05-24
   The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 came into force and was to remain in force for eight years. [1][5]
4. 1994-03-11
   The Supreme Court in Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab upheld TADA 1987 generally as valid, as later noted in Abdul Aziz. [10][11]
5. 1995-07-21
   The Supreme Court in Abdul Aziz vs State of West Bengal dismissed a challenge to the constitutional validity of TADA 1987, particularly Section 1(4), rejecting claims that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. [10]
6. 1995-10-16
   The Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt vs State of Maharashtra set bail conditions requiring him to appear before the Designated Court as and when directed and to comply with any other direction of that court. [12]
7. 1999-09-14
   The Supreme Court in State Through CBI, Delhi vs Gian Singh altered Gian Singh's death sentence under Section 3(2) of TADA 1985 to imprisonment for life, holding that the alternative sentence in TADA 1987 superseded the mandatory death sentence in the 1985 Act. [9]

The documents

1. [1] Section 1 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 4 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 1 (1) in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 4 (1) in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Regarding Clean-Chit Given By The High Court To Late Shri ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Unknown vs Muhammad Yaseen Malik And Others on 26 April, 2019 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Bhagwati Prasad Dixit 'Ghorewala' vs Rajeev Gandhi on 25 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] State Through Cbi, Delhi vs Gian Singh on 14 September, 1999 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Abdul Aziz vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 21 July, 1995 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 1995 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026