What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

Parliament enacted the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which extends to the whole of India. The Act makes it an offence for a public servant to obtain or accept an undue advantage, punishable with imprisonment of not less than three years and up to seven years and a fine; makes abetment punishable the same way; and makes commercial organisations liable to a fine for bribing a public servant. It provides for special judges to try offences and requires sanction before prosecution.

What it meant for the country

The Act established penalties of three to seven years' imprisonment and fines for public servants who take bribes, and fines for companies that bribe them, securing the public interest in prosecuting corruption.

• A public servant who obtains or accepts an undue advantage faces imprisonment of not less than three years and up to seven years, and a fine (Section 7). [2]
• Anyone who abets an offence under the Act faces imprisonment of not less than three years and up to seven years, and a fine (Section 12). [4]
• A commercial organisation is punishable with a fine if a person associated with it gives or promises an undue advantage to a public servant to obtain or retain business (Section 9). [5]
• Special judges can take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed for trial, and follow the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 5). [3]
• Sanction is required before a court can take cognizance of offences under the Act (Section 19, as recorded in case law). [10]

Step by step

1. 1988
   The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was enacted, extending to the whole of India. [1]
2. 2012-04-17
   A sanction order for prosecution was issued, dated 17.04.2012, in a case under the Act (Sanjaya Dikshit v CBI). [7]
3. 2015-09-08
   The CBI completed investigation and sought sanction from the appointing authority, the Department of Personnel and Training, for prosecuting an accused (Vijay Rajmohan v State). [9]
4. 2018-07-26
   Act 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018, amended the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [4]
5. 2019
   Act 34 of 2019 omitted the words 'except the State of Jammu and Kashmir' from Section 1 of the Act. [1]
6. 2022-07-15
   A charge-sheet dated 15.07.2022 was filed under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the Act (Shashikant Mishra v Union of India). [11]
7. 2024-07-04
   A court noted that a sanction order dated 17.04.2012 did not consider any input or opinion expressed by the Central Vigilance Commission with regard to sanction for prosecution (Sanjaya Dikshit v CBI). [7]
8. 2025-01-24
   A court recorded that under Section 19 of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018, sanction against the accused is necessary to take cognizance of offences (G. Balasubramanian v CBI). [10]

The documents

1. [1] Section 1 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 5 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 12 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 9 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Cbi vs Manas Kumar Kayal And Anr on 5 October, 2024 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Sanjaya Dikshit vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 4 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Cbi vs . Jati Ram Meena & Anr. on 29 July, 2022 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Vijay Rajmohan vs State Represented By The Inspector Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] G. Balasubramanian vs C.B.I. on 24 January, 2025 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Shashikant Mishra vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2024 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament amended Article 326 of the Constitution through the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988, replacing the minimum voting age of twenty-one years with eighteen years for elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.

What it meant for the country

The amendment extended the right to vote to citizens aged 18 to 20, as Article 326 now sets the voting age at eighteen years.

• Citizens aged 18 to 20 became eligible to vote in elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, where previously the minimum age was 21 years. [1]
• The change also flowed into other laws: the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 substituted 'eighteen' for 'twenty-one' in its voter age provision. [2]

Step by step

1. 1988
   Parliament enacted the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988, whose short title is recorded in Section 1 of the Act. [3]
2. 1989-03-28
   Section 2 of the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988 substituted 'eighteen' for 'twenty-one' in the voting age provision, dated 28 March 1989. [2]

The documents

1. [1] Article 326 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 47 (5) (a) in Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 1 in THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTY-FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 1988 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTIETH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1988 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Article 68 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Independent Thought vs Union Of India on 11 October, 2017 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Kuldip Nayar vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Kanta Rani And Ors. vs Staff Selection Commission And Ors. on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Ajit Singh vs Chief Election Commissioner Of India & ... on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Section 49P in Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Section 2 in THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTY-FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 1988 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

The Bihar government appointed a commission of inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, with terms of reference covering the 24 October 1989 disturbances, whether they were pre-planned, the adequacy of district administration measures, and recommendations to prevent recurrence. It first appointed Justice Ram Nandan Prasad as sole member; the commission later had two members. The commission submitted a report, and an action taken report was submitted to the Bihar Legislative Assembly. In 2006 the Bihar Home (Special) Department issued a notification setting up a fresh single-member commission on the 1989-90 Bhagalpur riots.

What it meant for the country

The 1989 Bhagalpur riots caused many deaths and injuries, and the official inquiry reports were later the subject of court challenges and difficulties in access, with no compensation to victims shown in the sources.

• The riots caused many deaths and left some others injured, as recorded by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani (2003). [4]
• The inquiry report's adverse remarks against L.K. Advani were challenged in court, and the Supreme Court affirmed the right of persons criticised in commission reports to seek judicial review without waiting for government action. [4][7]
• Victims' access to inquiry reports was obstructed: a 2010 Central Information Commission order recorded that several riot commission reports could not be located by the Delhi government. [1]

Step by step

1. 1989-10-24
   Communal disturbances began in Bhagalpur district and adjacent areas of Bihar. [4][7]
2. 2003-09-16
   The Supreme Court decided State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, holding that a person adversely commented upon by a Commission of Inquiry without an opportunity to be heard can seek judicial review without waiting for the government to act on the report. [4]
3. 2006-02-26
   The Bihar Home (Special) Department issued a Gazette notification setting up a single-member commission of enquiry under Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, regarding the communal riot of Bhagalpur and adjoining areas during October 1989-90. [2]
4. 2010-09-17
   The Central Information Commission passed an order in Suroor Mander v. Government of NCT of Delhi, noting that reports of riot inquiry commissions, including the 1989 Bhagalpur anti-Muslim riots report, were sought under the RTI Act and that some reports could not be located. [1]
5. 2014-01-27
   The Jharkhand High Court heard a writ petition challenging clauses of the 26 February 2006 Bihar notification and found that the cause of action arose in the State of Bihar. [2]

The documents

1. [1] Ms.Suroor Mander vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Ashok Kumar Roy vs Chief Secretory on 27 January, 2014 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Kiran Bedi & Ors vs Committee Of Inquiry & Anr on 4 January, 1989 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] State Of Bihar vs Lal Krishna Advani & Ors on 16 September, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Krishna Bhagwan vs State Of Bihar on 27 March, 1989 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Need To Provide Compensation To The Victims Of 1984 Riots. on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Lal Krishna Advani (L.K. Advani) And ... vs State Of Bihar ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament enacted the Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Act, 1989. It amended Article 334 of the Constitution, replacing "forty years" with "fifty years", and thereby extended reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and Anglo-Indian representation by nomination, in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for another ten years, to 2000. The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 20 December 1989.

What it meant for the country

The amendment secured continued reserved political representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and Anglo-Indian nomination, in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies for another ten years, as recorded in the Act.

• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes continued to have reserved seats in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for an additional ten years beyond the original forty-year period, until 2000. [1][3]
• Anglo-Indian representation by nomination in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies was also continued for the same further ten-year period. [1][3]
• The reservation that would otherwise have ceased in 1990 was extended to 2000. [7]

Step by step

1. 1989-12
   Parliament enacted the Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Act, 1989, amending Article 334 to substitute "fifty years" for "forty years" and extending reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and Anglo-Indian representation by nomination, in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for another ten years, up to 2000. [1][3][4]
2. 1989-12-20
   The Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Bill, 1989 (Bill No. 26 of 1989) was introduced in the Rajya Sabha. [3]

The documents

1. [1] THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1989 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Article 334 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Sixty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India - Wikipedia Web, en.wikipedia.org
4. [4] PDF The Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Act, 1989 Official, legislative.gov.in
5. [5] Sixty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India Web, grokipedia.com
6. [6] Sixty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India Web, en.bharatpedia.org
7. [7] 62nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution, 1989 - barristery.in Web, barristery.in
8. [8] PRS Legislative Research Research, prsindia.org
9. [9] Article 334 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] PIB Press Releases Official, archive.pib.gov.in

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026