What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

Parliament enacted the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which created consumer councils and a three-tier redressal system. The Central Government was given the power to notify the date the Act would come into force; state governments were to establish district forums and state commissions, and the central government was to establish the national commission.

What it meant for the country

The Act gave consumers statutory rights and created a three-tier system to hear their complaints, a gain for consumers.

• Consumers gained six statutory rights, including protection against hazardous goods and services, information about quality and price, and redressal against unfair trade practices. [3]
• A three-tier redressal system was created: District Forums, State Commissions and a National Commission, where consumers could file complaints. [1]
• Complaints could be filed by individual consumers, recognised consumer associations, or the Central or State Government on behalf of consumers generally. [1]
• Frivolous or vexatious complaints could be dismissed with costs up to ₹10,000, a safeguard against misuse of the new forums. [5]

Step by step

1. 1986
   The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted. It provided for Central, State and District Consumer Protection Councils and for District Forums, State Commissions and a National Commission. [1][3][11]
2. 2002
   The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 was passed by Rajya Sabha. It added provisions for District Consumer Protection Councils, circuit benches, transfer of cases, and enforcement of orders. [7][12]

The documents

1. [1] The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 1 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 6 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 2 (1) in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 26 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 19 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Section 8A in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Section 1 (3) in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Section 28A in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] The Motion For The Consideration Of The Consumer Protection ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Passage In Rajya Sabha Of The Consumer Protection (Amendment ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

The District Judge of Faizabad, on 1 February 1986, directed the authorities to remove the barrier by opening the locks on gates O and P shown in the map, after the Munsif Sadar, Faizabad, had refused to pass an order on a worshipper's request for closer darshan.

What it meant for the country

The unlocking of the Babri Masjid gates led to documented detentions under the National Security Act and is reported to have intensified communal mobilisation across India.

• Four persons were detained under the National Security Act and their detentions were upheld by the Allahabad High Court, in connection with speeches about the Babri Masjid/Ram Janma Bhumi controversy. [2]
• The unlocking order is reported to have intensified political, religious and communal mobilisation across India (as reported by Moneycontrol). [8]

Step by step

1. 1949-12-23
   The administration sealed the inner courtyard of the Babri Masjid after idols appeared inside the central dome on the night of 22-23 December 1949 (as reported by Moneycontrol). [8]
2. 1950-01-16
   Regular Suit No.2 of 1950 was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad seeking the right to worship and darshan at the disputed site. [6]
3. 1986
   An appeal, numbered 746 of 1986, was filed against the order of 1 February 1986. [6]
4. 1986-02-01
   The District Judge, Faizabad, on appeal from the Munsif Sadar, Faizabad, directed the authorities to remove the barrier by opening the locks on gates O and P shown in the map, allowing Hindu worship in the disputed area. [1]
5. 1986-02-20
   Detention orders under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act were passed against four persons in connection with speeches about the Babri Masjid/Ram Janma Bhumi. [2]
6. 1986-03-31
   The Allahabad High Court upheld the detention orders, holding they were based on grounds relating to public order. [2]
7. 2009-05-29
   The Allahabad High Court took the file of the appeal against the 1 February 1986 order on record and directed it to be sealed. [6]

The documents

1. [1] Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman At Sri Rama ... vs Sri Rajendra Singh Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Riaz Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 31 March, 1986 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Gonda--Amended Vide Court Order Dated ... vs Zahoor Ahmad Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Umesh Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 January, 1987 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Umesh Chandra Pandey vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Rajendra Singh vs . Zahoor Ahmad And Others on 1 April, 1950 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Urged Upon The Government To Protect The Babri Masjid And To ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Opening of the Babri Masjid site for Hindu worship (1986 ... Press, moneycontrol.com

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

The Union government appointed the Thakkar Commission on 20 November 1984 to inquire into the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The Commission submitted two reports to the government, on 19 November 1985 and 27 February 1986. The Minister of State in the Department of Internal Security approved a proposal on 14 May 1986 not to lay the reports before the House of the People, and a notification to that effect was issued in the Official Gazette on 15 May 1986.

What it meant for the country

The Commission's findings on security lapses and conspiracy in the assassination of a sitting Prime Minister were withheld from Parliament and the public, and the Supreme Court upheld the withholding, but the sources do not establish the wider consequences of that decision.

• The two reports of the Thakkar Commission were not laid before the House of the People, so Parliament and the public did not receive the Commission's findings on the assassination, security lapses, or conspiracy. [1]
• The Supreme Court upheld the government's decision to withhold the reports, confirming that the findings would remain unpublished. [1]

Step by step

1. 1984-10-31
   Indira Gandhi was assassinated at her residence, 1 Safdarjang Road, Akbar Road, New Delhi. [1]
2. 1984-11-20
   The Central Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, headed by Justice Thakkar, a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India, to inquire into the sequence of events, whether the crime could have been averted, lapses by individuals on security duty, deficiencies in the security system, deficiencies in medical attention, and whether any person or agency was responsible for conceiving, preparing and planning the assassination. [1]
3. 1985-01-21
   The Commission framed additional regulations under Section 8 of the Commission of Inquiry Act regarding the procedure to be followed by it. [1]
4. 1985-11-19
   The Commission submitted a report to the Government. [1]
5. 1986-01-22
   Satwant Singh, Balbir Singh and Kehar Singh were held guilty of conspiracy and murder in the Indira Gandhi murder case and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge. [3]
6. 1986-02-27
   The Commission submitted another report to the Government. [1]
7. 1986-05-14
   A proposal not to lay the two reports before the House of the People was approved by the Minister of State in the Department of Internal Security. [1]
8. 1986-05-15
   Notification 260(E) was issued in the Official Gazette stating that the Central Government was satisfied that it was not expedient in the interest of the security of the State and in the public interest to lay before the House of the People the reports submitted on 19 November 1985 and 27 February 1986 by Justice M. P. Thakkar. [1]
9. 1986-05-30
   The Supreme Court delivered judgment in Satwant Singh vs Union of India, holding that the government's decision not to lay the reports before the House of the People was valid under Section 3(5) of the Commission of Inquiry Act. [1]

The documents

1. [1] Satwant Singh vs Union Of India And Anr. on 30 May, 1986 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Jain Commission Of Enquiry vs Unknown on 2 July, 1993 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] S.P. Mahna vs P.N. Lekhi on 9 April, 1986 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] State Through Special Investigation ... vs Sajjan Kumar on 22 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Bhagwati Prasad Dixit 'Ghorewala' vs Rajeev Gandhi on 25 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] S.Nalini vs The State Of Tamil Nadu - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] L.D. Jaikwal vs State Of U.P on 17 May, 1984 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] The Commissions Of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Hiteshkumar Natwarlal Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 27 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Shri Dharmesh ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Umang Hiralal Thakkar vs Income Tax Settlement Commission on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Keshavlal Valjibhai Thakkar And Ors. vs Government Of Gujarat ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

The Government of India ordered 410 155 mm guns from AB Bofors on 24 March 1986 and paid Rs 296.15 crore as an advance on 2 May 1986. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case on 22 January 1990. The government did not pursue an extradition appeal in the Supreme Court of Argentina against Ottavio Quattrocchi, and later withdrew the Interpol Red Corner Notice against him after the Attorney General of India approved the withdrawal because the notice was impinging very heavily upon the exchequer.

What it meant for the country

The Bofors prosecution largely ended without convictions: the Delhi High Court quashed proceedings against public servants and certain other accused, the government did not pursue an extradition appeal in Argentina, and the Interpol Red Corner Notice was withdrawn because it was impinging heavily

• Ottavio Quattrocchi, described in a Lok Sabha question as the Bofors prime accused, was not extradited after the government did not pursue an appeal in Argentina's Supreme Court; a member of Parliament said the country had been agitating over the matter for 22 years. [10] [10]
• The Interpol Red Corner Notice against Quattrocchi was withdrawn after the approval of the Attorney General of India because it was impinging very heavily upon the exchequer. [8] [8]
• The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against public servants and certain other accused by judgments of February 2004 and May 2005, as reported in a Lok Sabha question, so those prosecutions ended without convictions. [10] [10]
• Rs 296.15 crore, equal to 20% of the contract value, had already been paid to Bofors as an advance by 2 May 1986, before the criminal case ended without convictions. [2] [2]

Step by step

1. 1986-03-24
   The Government of India placed an order with AB Bofors for 410 numbers (400 plus 10 free) of 155 mm Field Howitzer 77-B gun systems or spare guns under contract No. [2] [2]
2. 1986-05-02
   An advance of Rs 296.15 crore, equivalent to 20% of the contract value, was paid to Bofors. [2] [2]
3. 1987-04-16
   Swedish Radio's Dagens Eko programme broadcast a story on the Bofors contract, more than a year after the contract and after deliveries had started. [2] [2]
4. 1988-04-22
   The Joint Parliamentary Committee submitted its report on the matter. [2] [2]
5. 1990-01-22
   The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, registered a first information report. Its preface recorded that the case was registered on the basis of reliable information received from sources, media reports dated 1 June 1987 of the Swedish National Audit Bureau, certain facts from the Joint Parliamentary Committee report dated 22 April 1988 and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of April 1988. [2] [9] [2][9]
6. 1990-02-07
   A Letter Rogatory was issued by the Court of Special Judge, Delhi, to the competent Swiss authorities for further investigation. The Swiss authorities made available their part investigation report along with certain documents in December 1990 and January 1997. [9] [9]
7. 1997-02-17
   Interpol officials issued a Red Corner Notice against Ottavio Quattrocchi. [9] [9]
8. 2001-05-12
   The Supreme Court of India noted that the three Hinduja brothers were charge-sheeted and passed an interim measure permitting them to travel abroad subject to conditions, to remain in force up to 20 August 2001, with the matter listed on 7 August 2001. [1] [1]
9. 2004-02
   As reported in a Lok Sabha question, the Delhi High Court's February 2004 judgment quashed proceedings against public servants. [10] [10]
10. 2005-05
    As reported in the same Lok Sabha question, the Delhi High Court's May 2005 judgment quashed proceedings against certain other accused. [10] [10]

The documents

1. [1] Srichand P. Hinduja vs State Through C.B.I., New Delhi on 12 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning Ab And ... vs State Through ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Dharma Shamrao Agalawe vs Pandurang Miragu Agalawe & Ors on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Kiran Bedi & Ors vs Committee Of Inquiry & Anr on 18 August, 1988 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Jaipal & Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 June, 1988 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Rc No.1 (A)/90 ("Cbi vs Ottavio Quattrocchi") Dod: 04.03.2011 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Ottavio Quattrocchi vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Regarding Need To Take Action For The Extradition Of Mr ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] C.B.I. New Delhi vs B.B.Agarwal . on 18 February, 2019 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] B. L. Agrawal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 19 ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026