1948Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
Jeep scandal
A parliamentary committee reported in 1951 but its report was never made public; the government closed the matter in 1955 without action, and Menon joined the Union Cabinet in 1956.
The record
What governments did, and what it cost the country
Year by year from 1947. Each entry tells you in plain words what happened, who did it, what the evidence is, and where the matter stands today. Every line links to a document: a court judgment, a law, an audit report or a charge sheet. The label on each entry is its position today. An accusation is not a conviction, and a person cleared by a court is shown as cleared.
189 documented, 71 being documented
Timeline
The scams that cost India
Scroll sideways along the timeline
Jawaharlal Nehru
1947–1964, 6 cases
- 1951Resigned
Union government
Mudgal case
Mudgal resigned during the debate on Nehru's expulsion motion in September 1951.
- 1957Resigned
Union government
Mundhra–LIC scandal
About ₹1.26 crore of LIC funds in Mundhra-group shares (estimates vary)
Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari resigned in February 1958, as did the Finance Secretary and LIC chairman; Mundhra was convicted of fraud.
- 1962Convictions
Union government
Dharma Teja / Jayanti Shipping
₹20.25 crore government-backed loan (Lok Sabha, 1962)
Charge-sheeted by the CBI in 1967 and brought back from London in 1971, Teja was convicted; the company was merged into the Shipping Corporation of India.
- 1963Resigned
Union government
Serajuddin affair (K.D. Malaviya)
Malaviya resigned after the Das report raised prima facie concerns; no prosecution followed.
- 1963Resigned
Punjab
Pratap Singh Kairon case
The Das Commission upheld some of the charges in June 1964, and Kairon resigned that month.
Indira Gandhi
1966–1977, 4 cases
- 1971Commission findings
Union government
Maruti affair
Maruti Ltd was liquidated in 1977 and the Justice A.C. Gupta Commission issued a strongly critical report; no conviction followed.
- 1971Convictions
Union government
Nagarwala case
₹60 lakh withdrawn from SBI, mostly recovered
Nagarwala was convicted and died in custody in 1972; the 1978 Reddy Commission said the Prime Minister's office had obstructed the police inquiry.
- 1974Unresolved
Union government
Pondicherry import licences (Tulmohan Ram)
Mishra was killed in January 1975; no final verdict against Ram appears in the record reviewed.
- 1975Discharged
Bihar
Patna Urban Cooperative Bank case
The prosecution was withdrawn in 1981 after his own cabinet approved it; the Supreme Court upheld the withdrawal in 1982 and, by 3:2, in 1986.
Indira Gandhi
1980–1984, 4 cases
- 1980Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
Kuo Oil deal
About US$9.85 million notional loss (Committee on Public Undertakings, 1983)
Parliament's Committee on Public Undertakings found the purchase 'not prudent' but made no finding of wrongdoing; no prosecution followed.
- 1981Resigned
Maharashtra
Antulay cement scam
Antulay resigned in January 1982; he was cleared after a 12-year legal battle ending in the Supreme Court.
- 1982Closed — no court ever decided
Madhya Pradesh
Churhat lottery case
A one-judge commission and the High Court cleared Arjun Singh.
- 1983Acquitted
Union government
Lakhubhai Pathak cheating case
US$100,000 (alleged)
A Delhi court acquitted all three in December 2003, calling Pathak's evidence unreliable.
Rajiv Gandhi
1984–1989, 3 cases
- 1987Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
Bofors scandal
₹64 crore in alleged kickbacks on a ₹1,437 crore howitzer contract
The Delhi High Court found no evidence against Rajiv Gandhi in 2004; Quattrocchi was discharged in 2011 and never extradited; the Supreme Court dismissed the last appeal in August 2026.
- 1987Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
HDW submarine deal
Alleged 7% commission on a ₹465 crore contract
A 1990 CBI FIR named a former Defence Secretary and company representatives; the probes ended without any conviction.
- 1989Acquitted
Union government
St Kitts forgery case
Rao and Tewari were let go for lack of evidence in 1997; Chandraswami was acquitted in 2004, though the court held the documents were forged.
P.V. Narasimha Rao
1991–1996, 9 cases
- 1991Still in court
Kerala
Palmolein import case
About ₹2.3 crore alleged loss (CAG)
Proceedings against Karunakaran ended with his death in 2010; the trial of the others remains held up by petitions in the Supreme Court.
- 1992Convictions
Union government
Securities scam (Harshad Mehta)
About ₹4,000 crore (widely cited estimate)
Mehta's conviction was upheld in 2003 and bank officials were sentenced as late as 2018; no minister was charged.
- 1992Acquitted
Karnataka
Classik Computer purchase case
A special court acquitted them in 2003; the High Court dismissed the CBI's appeal in 2011.
- 1993Acquitted
Union government
JMM MPs bribery case
A special court convicted both in 2000; the Delhi High Court acquitted them in 2002. The MPs' parliamentary immunity was overruled by the Supreme Court in 2024.
- 1994Resigned
Union government
Sugar import scam
₹650 crore alleged loss (claim by former minister Kalpnath Rai)
Kalpnath Rai resigned; no prosecution established responsibility.
- 1996Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
Petrol pump allotments (Satish Sharma)
The Supreme Court cancelled 15 allotments and imposed ₹50 lakh in damages in 1996, then set aside the damages and the CBI direction on review in 1999.
- 1996Unresolved
Union government
Government shop allotments (Sheila Kaul)
She died in 2015 without a verdict; her former aide was sentenced to two years in 2016.
- 1996Convictions
Union government
Telecom equipment scam (Sukh Ram)
Over ₹1.16 crore in cash recovered from the minister's home (CBI)
Convicted in several cases; the Delhi High Court upheld a sentence in 2011, and he got five years in the Haryana Telecom case.
- 1996Convictions
Union government
Urea import scam
₹133 crore paid for urea never delivered (CBI)
A special CBI court convicted eight people in 2018, including the PM's relative B. Sanjeeva Rao.
Manmohan Singh · UPA-I
2004–2009, 8 cases
- 2004Still in court
Haryana
Manesar land acquisition case
₹1,500 crore alleged loss to landowners (CBI, 2018)
The Supreme Court cancelled the land transfers in 2018; Hooda's trial continues.
- 2004Still in court
Andhra Pradesh
Quid-pro-quo investment cases
Eleven CBI chargesheets have been filed since 2011; the trial is pending and nothing has been proven.
- 2005Resigned
Union government
Iraq oil-for-food allegations
Natwar Singh resigned in December 2005; the Pathak inquiry found allocations were made to oblige an associate but no evidence that he received money.
- 2005Discharged
Haryana
AJL Panchkula plot re-allotment
A special CBI court discharged Hooda and AJL in April 2026.
- 2005Still in court
Union government
Antrix–Devas S-band deal
₹578 crore alleged wrongful gain to Devas (CBI, 2016)
The deal was cancelled in 2011; in 2022 the Supreme Court called it a 'product of fraud' by Devas. The criminal cases are pending.
- 2005Closed — no court ever decided
Union government
Scorpene submarine deal allegations
The CBI found no evidence of kickbacks, and the Delhi High Court declined to order a further probe in 2016.
- 2008Acquitted
Union government
2G spectrum allocation
₹1.76 lakh crore presumptive loss (CAG, 2010)
The Supreme Court cancelled all 122 licences in 2012; a special CBI court acquitted all accused in 2017. The CBI's appeal is pending in the Delhi High Court.
- 2008Unresolved
Union government
Cash-for-votes
₹1 crore in cash displayed in the Lok Sabha
A parliamentary committee found no evidence against either; in 2013 a court discharged most accused, and the money trail was never traced.
Manmohan Singh · UPA-II
2009–2014, 11 cases
- 2010Unresolved
Union government
Commonwealth Games contracts
Over ₹90 crore alleged loss on the timing-scoring contract (CBI, 2011)
A court accepted the ED's money-laundering closure report in April 2025 after a related CBI case closed; Kalmadi was never convicted and died in January 2026.
- 2010Resigned
Maharashtra
Adarsh Housing Society
Chavan resigned as Chief Minister in 2010; in 2017 the Bombay High Court set aside the sanction to prosecute him.
- 2012Convictions
Union government
Coal block allocations (“Coalgate”)
₹1.86 lakh crore estimated windfall to private allottees (CAG, 2012)
The Supreme Court cancelled 214 allocations in 2014. Former coal secretary H.C. Gupta and others have been convicted in several cases (under appeal); other cases ended in acquittal.
- 2012Unresolved
Union government
Delhi airport concessions
₹1,63,557 crore potential earnings to the operator over 60 years (CAG — not a computed loss)
These remain audit findings; no prosecution followed.
- 2012Still in court
Goa
Goa illegal mining
₹35,000 crore (Justice M.B. Shah Commission estimate)
A court discharged Kamat in one case in 2025; another chargesheet against him remains.
- 2012Unresolved
Maharashtra
Maharashtra irrigation allegations
About ₹70,000 crore spent for a ~0.1% rise in irrigation (spending, not a loss estimate)
The state ACB told the High Court in 2019 that Pawar was not involved; probes into other tenders continued.
- 2012Still in court
Union government
National Herald / Young Indian
AJL properties worth over ₹2,000 crore allegedly acquired for ₹50 lakh (ED allegation)
A trial court declined to take cognisance of the ED chargesheet in December 2025; the ED's challenge is listed in the Delhi High Court for 12 October 2026.
- 2012Still in court
Union government
Tatra trucks bribe-offer allegation
₹14 crore alleged bribe offer (per the Army chief)
The CBI closed the procurement probe in 2014; the trial in the bribe-offer case is under way.
- 2012Still in court
Haryana
Robert Vadra–DLF land deal
Bought for ₹7.5 crore in 2008, sold to DLF for ₹58 crore (ED allegation)
A Delhi court took cognisance of the ED's money-laundering chargesheet in April 2026 and granted Vadra bail; no court has found guilt.
- 2013Still in court
Union government
AgustaWestland VVIP helicopters
€556 million contract; the ED alleges a middleman received about €30 million
India cancelled the contract in 2014; Italy's top court acquitted the company executives in 2019; middleman Christian Michel was extradited in 2018 and no Indian verdict has been delivered.
- 2013Resigned
Union government
Railway Board cash-for-post
₹90 lakh allegedly paid for a Railway Board post (CBI)
Bansal resigned and is a prosecution witness, not an accused; the trial of ten accused continues.
Amounts are the estimating body's own figure (CAG, CBI, a commission or a court): an estimate or allegation, not a proven loss. Each outcome is stated as of October 2026. Cases that involved several parties, such as the Jain hawala diaries, are left out.
Years
1989
1989
Harm to the nationThe St Kitts forgery case, 1989
In 1989, documents were published in newspapers claiming that the son of then politician V.P. Singh, Ajeya Singh, held a secret numbered account at First Trust Corporation Limited in St Kitts, a Caribbean island, containing US $21 million, with V.P. Singh named as the beneficiary. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India's federal investigating agency, said these documents were forged as part of a conspiracy to damage the reputation of V.P. Singh and expose Ajeya Singh to criminal prosecution. A CBI case was registered in 1990 against Chandraswami, K.N. Aggarwal and others, and P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary were later added as accused. The trial court acquitted Rao and Tewary, the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal, and the CBI challenged it in the Supreme Court.
Found not guilty by a courtP.V. Narasimha Rao; K.K. Tewary; Chandraswami
1989
Harm to the nationThe St Kitts forgery case, 1989
In 1989, documents were published in newspapers claiming that the son of then politician V.P. Singh, Ajeya Singh, held a secret numbered account at First Trust Corporation Limited in St Kitts, a Caribbean island, containing US $21 million, with V.P. Singh named as the beneficiary. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India's federal investigating agency, said these documents were forged as part of a conspiracy to damage the reputation of V.P. Singh and expose Ajeya Singh to criminal prosecution. A CBI case was registered in 1990 against Chandraswami, K.N. Aggarwal and others, and P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary were later added as accused. The trial court acquitted Rao and Tewary, the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal, and the CBI challenged it in the Supreme Court.
Found not guilty by a courtRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyA court held a trial and cleared the accused. They are not guilty in law.
What happened
In 1989, documents were published in newspapers claiming that the son of then politician V.P. Singh, Ajeya Singh, held a secret numbered account at First Trust Corporation Limited in St Kitts, a Caribbean island, containing US $21 million, with V.P. Singh named as the beneficiary. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India's federal investigating agency, said these documents were forged as part of a conspiracy to damage the reputation of V.P. Singh and expose Ajeya Singh to criminal prosecution. A CBI case was registered in 1990 against Chandraswami, K.N. Aggarwal and others, and P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary were later added as accused. The trial court acquitted Rao and Tewary, the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal, and the CBI challenged it in the Supreme Court.
Who did it
P.V. Narasimha Rao; K.K. Tewary; Chandraswami
The evidence
- The forged documents showed that on 16 September 1986 an account, being Account No. 29479, was opened in the name of Ajeya Singh at First Trust Corporation Limited, St Kitts, with Vishwanath Pratap Singh as beneficiary. [4]
- A sum of US $21 million was alleged to have been deposited in the account during the period 16 September 1986 to 26 March 1987. [4]
- A report of Shri B.M. Nehra, Senior Scientific Officer, dated 18 April 1996 said the photocopied signatures on the safe keeping agreement long form and numbered account agreement were forged signatures and not those of Ajeya Singh and Vishwanath Pratap Singh. [4]
- The CBI case was registered on 25 May 1990 against Chandraswami, Aggarwal, former director of enforcement K.L. and others. [7]
- The trial court acquitted P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary, and the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal; the CBI challenged it in the Supreme Court, which sent them notice, as reported by Telegraph India. [7]
Where it stands today
According to Telegraph India, the CBI's special leave petition challenging the acquittal of P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary, which the Delhi High Court had upheld, was pending in the Supreme Court, which sent them notice. For Chandraswami and K.N. Aggarwal, the Delhi High Court held in December 1999 that charges were prima facie justified, but the available documents do not state the final outcome of their trial.
What was done
The CBI registered a case on 25 May 1990 against Chandraswami, K.N. Aggarwal and others over forged St Kitts bank documents. It later charge-sheeted Chandraswami and Aggarwal, and added P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary as accused, alleging a conspiracy to defame V.P. Singh by fabricating documents showing his son held a secret US $21 million account. The trial court acquitted Rao and Tewary, and the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal. For Chandraswami and Aggarwal, the Delhi High Court held in 1999 that charges of criminal conspiracy, forgery and using forged documents were prima facie justified.
What it meant for the country
The forged documents injured the reputation of V.P. Singh and his son and led a Minister of State for Finance to tell Parliament that the account existed, while the Delhi High Court's prima facie findings recorded that the account did not exist and the documents were fabricated.
- A Minister of State for Finance stated in the Rajya Sabha on 11 October 1989 that Ajeya Singh had a numbered account at First Trust Corporation Limited, St Kitts, a statement based on documents the Delhi High Court later found prima facie fabricated. [4]
- Ajeya Singh was subjected to Enforcement Directorate demands for information and faced possible prosecution under FERA, as the documents exposed him to a hazard of criminal prosecution. [4]
- The reputation of Vishwanath Pratap Singh and his son Ajeya Singh was harmed, and newspaper publication of the alleged account documents caused injury to them. [4]
- The Delhi High Court recorded a prima facie finding that the alleged St Kitts account in Ajeya Singh's name did not exist and that the documents showing US $21 million on deposit were fabricated. [4]
- No conviction for the forgery is documented in the available sources; the trial court acquitted P.V. Narasimha Rao and K.K. Tewary, and the Delhi High Court upheld that acquittal. [7]
Step by step
- 1989-08-26
The Telegraph and The Hindustan Times published a copy of an alleged 'Numbered Account Agreement' describing Ajeya Singh as the account holder and V.P. Singh as beneficiary of an account at First Trust Corporation Limited, St Kitts. [4] - 1989-10-11
Shri Eduardo Faleiro, then Minister of State for Finance, made a statement in the Rajya Sabha to the effect that Ajeya Singh had a numbered account at First Trust Corporation Limited, St Kitts, based on documents brought by a person named Nanday. [4] - 1990-05-25
The CBI registered the case against Chandraswami, Aggarwal, former director of enforcement K.L. and others, alleging a conspiracy to defame V.P. Singh through forged documents showing him as beneficiary of his son Ajeya Singh's account in First Trust Corporation Ltd, St Kitts, with US $21 million deposited. [7] - 1996-04-12
The CBI filed a charge-sheet in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, against Chandraswami and another appellant under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. [5] - 1996-09-21
Charges were ordered to be framed against the newly added accused, including P.V. Narasimha Rao, who had been summoned for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. [5] - 1996-09-26
In its charge-sheet, as reported by Telegraph India, the CBI alleged that Rao, Tewary, Chandraswami and others were part of a conspiracy to defame former Prime Minister V.P. Singh by forging documents showing Singh was a beneficiary of his son Ajeya Singh's account at First Trust Corporation Ltd, St Kitts. [7] - 1996-11-07
The Supreme Court directed that both the appellants (Chandraswami and another) be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs one lakh each with one surety in like amount each, subject to conditions including not leaving the country and not contacting prosecution witnesses. [5] - 1997-10-15
The proceedings before the trial court were stayed in a pending writ matter. [4] - 1999-12-23
The Delhi High Court, in a matter concerning Chandraswami and K.N. Aggarwal, found no infirmity in the trial court's prima facie opinion that the so-called St Kitts account in the name of Ajeya Singh did not exist and that the documents were fabricated to show its existence; the High Court upheld the framing of charges under Sections 120B read with 195, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against them. [4]
The documents
- [1] P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (Cbi/Spe) on 17 April, 1998 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (Cbi/Spe) on 17 April, 1998 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] P.V. Narsimha Rao vs State (Cbi/Spe) on 17 April, 1998 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Chandraswami And K.N. Aggarwal vs Central Bureau Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Chandraswami & Another ... Appellants vs Central Bureau Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] P.V. Narasimha Rao St. Kitts Case | PDF | Conspiracy ... - Scribd Web, scribd.com
- [7] SC SENDS ST KITTS NOTICE TO RAO - Telegraph India Web, telegraphindia.com
- [8] State Of U.P vs Ranjit Singh on 19 February, 1999 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [9] Union Of India vs M/S G.D. Tewari & Co on 17 March, 2026 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [10] In Re: Victims Of Digital Arrest Related ... vs O R D E R on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [11] Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through Its ... vs S.K. Saraswat ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [12] Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [13] Chandraswami vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 27 July, 1990 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [14] State Through Center Bureau Of ... vs Chandraswamy on 11 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
P.V. Narasimha Rao; K.K. Tewary; Chandraswami
1990
1990
Harm to the nationArmed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990
In 1990, amid the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, the central government brought a law giving the armed forces special powers in the state, including the power to fire on people, even causing death, and to arrest and search without a warrant in areas declared 'disturbed'. The law, the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, is deemed to have come into force on 5 July 1990 and replaced an earlier ordinance. It remains in force; the sources record calls for repeal and a right-to-information case about prosecutions, but no repeal or court cancellation.
A law or decision by the governmentResidents of Jammu and Kashmir
1990
Harm to the nationArmed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990
In 1990, amid the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, the central government brought a law giving the armed forces special powers in the state, including the power to fire on people, even causing death, and to arrest and search without a warrant in areas declared 'disturbed'. The law, the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, is deemed to have come into force on 5 July 1990 and replaced an earlier ordinance. It remains in force; the sources record calls for repeal and a right-to-information case about prosecutions, but no repeal or court cancellation.
A law or decision by the governmentRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyThis is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1990, amid the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, the central government brought a law giving the armed forces special powers in the state, including the power to fire on people, even causing death, and to arrest and search without a warrant in areas declared 'disturbed'. The law, the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, is deemed to have come into force on 5 July 1990 and replaced an earlier ordinance. It remains in force; the sources record calls for repeal and a right-to-information case about prosecutions, but no repeal or court cancellation.
Who did it
Residents of Jammu and Kashmir
The evidence
- The Act is called the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, extends to the whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and is deemed to have come into force on 5 July 1990. [1]
- Under Section 3, if the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir or the Central Government is of opinion that the whole or any part of the State is in such a disturbed and dangerous condition that the use of armed forces in aid of the civil power is necessary, they may by notification in the Official Gazette declare the whole or any part of the State to be a disturbed area. [7]
- Under Section 4, in a disturbed area, armed forces personnel may fire upon or use force even to the causing of death, destroy arms dumps or shelters, arrest without warrant, enter and search premises without warrant, and stop, search and seize vehicles or vessels. [4]
- Under Section 6, any person arrested and any property seized under the Act shall be made over to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances. [5]
- Under Section 7, no prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act. [6]
Where it stands today
The Act remains in force. No repeal, amendment or court cancellation of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 is recorded in the sources. The 2015 Lok Sabha debate records a call for repeal of the 1958 Act, not the 1990 Act.
What was done
The central government enacted the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, deemed in force from 5 July 1990, replacing the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Ordinance, 1990 (Ordinance 3 of 1990). The Act gave the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir or the Central Government power to declare the whole or any part of the state a 'disturbed area', and gave commissioned officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and persons of equivalent rank in the armed forces powers to fire upon people, destroy structures, arrest without warrant, and enter, search and seize without warrant in such areas.
What it meant for the country
The Act authorises armed forces to fire upon people, even causing death, in disturbed areas, and a critique records that the law has been used to sanction impunity and human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir.
- The Act authorises any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or person of equivalent rank in the armed forces, in a disturbed area, to fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person acting in contravention of certain laws or orders. [4]
- The Act provides that no prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act. [6]
- A critique of the Act states that the law has been widely used to sanction impunity, human rights violations, acts constituting war crimes and acts constituting crimes against humanity in Indian-Administered Jammu and Kashmir. [11]
- The SSB stated that between 1990 and 2011 no sanction for prosecution under the Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act was sought by the Jammu & Kashmir Government from the SSB. [9]
Step by step
- 1990
Section 8 of the Act repealed the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Ordinance, 1990 (Ordinance 3 of 1990), and provided that anything done under the Ordinance is deemed to have been done under the Act. [2] - 1990-07-05
The Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 is deemed to have come into force on 5 July 1990, extending to the whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. [1] - 2013-10-21
The Central Information Commission decided an appeal by Gautam Navlakha against the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) stated in written submissions that between 1990 and 2011 no sanction for prosecution under the Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act was sought by the Jammu & Kashmir Government from the SSB, as no power under the Act had been given to the SSB. [9] - 2015-02-25
In a Lok Sabha debate, MP Thokchom Meinya called for repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, citing recommendations of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007), the Working Group on Confidence-Building Measures in Jammu & Kashmir chaired by Hamid Ansari, and the Verma Committee. [8]
The documents
- [1] Section 1 in The Armed Forces (Jammu And Kashmir) Special ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] Section 8 in The Armed Forces (Jammu And Kashmir) Special ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] Section 2 in the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Section 4 in The Armed Forces (Jammu And Kashmir) Special ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Section 6 in The Armed Forces (Jammu And Kashmir) Special ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Section 7 in The Armed Forces (Jammu And Kashmir) Special ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] Section 3 in The Armed Forces (Jammu And Kashmir) Special ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] Need To Repeal The Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act (Afspa ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [9] Mr.Gautam Navlakha vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 21 October ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [10] The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [11] Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act 1990 Web, kljp.org
- [12] Critique of AFSPA and Human Rights in Kashmir Web, scribd.com
Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026
Residents of Jammu and Kashmir1990
Harm to the nationPrasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990
In 1990 Parliament passed a law to set up Prasar Bharati, an independent corporation to run All India Radio and Doordarshan. The law left the start date to the Central Government. The government did not bring it into force for about seven years. On 22 July 1997, as stated in Lok Sabha, the government notified that it would start on 15 September 1997, and it came into force that day. The Act remains in force, with a 2008 amendment.
A law or decision by the governmentBroadcasting autonomy
1990
Harm to the nationPrasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990
In 1990 Parliament passed a law to set up Prasar Bharati, an independent corporation to run All India Radio and Doordarshan. The law left the start date to the Central Government. The government did not bring it into force for about seven years. On 22 July 1997, as stated in Lok Sabha, the government notified that it would start on 15 September 1997, and it came into force that day. The Act remains in force, with a 2008 amendment.
A law or decision by the governmentRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyThis is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In 1990 Parliament passed a law to set up Prasar Bharati, an independent corporation to run All India Radio and Doordarshan. The law left the start date to the Central Government. The government did not bring it into force for about seven years. On 22 July 1997, as stated in Lok Sabha, the government notified that it would start on 15 September 1997, and it came into force that day. The Act remains in force, with a 2008 amendment.
Who did it
Broadcasting autonomy
The evidence
- The Prasar Bharati Act was enacted on 12 September 1990 to establish a Broadcasting Corporation of India for Akashvani and Doordarshan. [1]
- Section 1 of the Act said it would come into force on a date appointed by the Central Government by notification. [1][2]
- The Act came into force on 15 September 1997. [1]
- Jaipal Reddy stated in Lok Sabha that he notified the 1990 Act on 22 July 1997 and said it would become operational from 15 September 1997. [8]
- The Act's primary duty is to organise and conduct public broadcasting services to inform, educate and entertain the public and to ensure a balanced development of broadcasting on radio and television. [4][5]
Where it stands today
No pending court or parliamentary proceeding is identified in the sources. The Act is in force; a 2008 amendment ordinance was promulgated.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Prasar Bharati Act in 1990 to create an autonomous broadcasting corporation for Akashvani and Doordarshan. The Central Government left the Act uncommenced until 1997. Jaipal Reddy stated in Lok Sabha that he notified the Act on 22 July 1997 to become operational on 15 September 1997; it came into force that day.
What it meant for the country
The record shows broadcasting autonomy was delayed for about seven years and, after commencement, Lok Sabha members described the corporation's functioning as paralysed.
- The Act's commencement was delayed from 1990 to 15 September 1997, leaving All India Radio and Doordarshan under direct government control for about seven years instead of under the autonomous corporation the Act provided for. [1][8]
- After commencement, Lok Sabha members stated that the Prasar Bharati Board's functioning was paralysed, its members had been removed, and rules under the Act had not been framed. [8]
Step by step
- 1990-09-12
Parliament enacted the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990, to establish a Broadcasting Corporation of India for Akashvani and Doordarshan. [1] - 1997-07-22
Jaipal Reddy stated in Lok Sabha that he notified the 1990 Act on 22 July 1997 and said it would become operational from 15 September 1997. [8] - 1997-09-15
The Prasar Bharati Act came into force. [1][8] - 1997-11-23
A Lok Sabha member stated that the Prasar Bharati Board was constituted through a notification on 23 November 1997. [8] - 1998-07-31
Lok Sabha debated a motion to consider the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Amendment Bill, 1998; members noted the Act was passed in 1990 and that it was then 1998. [7] - 1999-12-21
Lok Sabha discussed the functioning of Prasar Bharati; members stated that its functioning had been paralysed, rules under the Act had not been framed, and Board members had been removed. [8] - 2008-02-07
The President promulgated the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Amendment Ordinance, 2008. [1]
The documents
- [1] The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation Of India) Act, 1990 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] Section 1 in The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation Of India) Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] Section 1 in The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation Of India) Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Section 12 (1) in The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation Of India ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Section 12 in The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation Of India ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Section 4 in The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation Of India) Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] Moved The Motion For Consideration Of The Prasar Bharati ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] Discussion regarding functioning of Prasar Bharati. - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [9] Lok Sabha Debates - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [10] Board Of Control For Cricket In India & ... vs Prasar Bharati ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [11] C Kumaravelu vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 25 July, 2025 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [12] S S Hiremath vs Prasar Bharti on 21 April, 2026 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Broadcasting autonomy
1991
1991
Hawala diaries: Jain diaries, charge sheets and court outcomes
In 1991, the Central Bureau of Investigation searched the premises of the Jain brothers and seized diaries that recorded payments to politicians and officials. The CBI filed charge sheets against several leaders, including L.K. Advani and V.C. Shukla, and a special court ordered charges to be framed in 1996. The Delhi High Court and later the Supreme Court held that the diary entries were not admissible as evidence, and the criminal proceedings ended without convictions; in the case of Balram Jakhar, the trial court acquitted him.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled itHawala diaries case, 1991–96
1991
Hawala diaries: Jain diaries, charge sheets and court outcomes
In 1991, the Central Bureau of Investigation searched the premises of the Jain brothers and seized diaries that recorded payments to politicians and officials. The CBI filed charge sheets against several leaders, including L.K. Advani and V.C. Shukla, and a special court ordered charges to be framed in 1996. The Delhi High Court and later the Supreme Court held that the diary entries were not admissible as evidence, and the criminal proceedings ended without convictions; in the case of Balram Jakhar, the trial court acquitted him.
Court said it was illegal and cancelled itRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyA court examined what was done, said it broke the law or the Constitution, and cancelled it.
What happened
In 1991, the Central Bureau of Investigation searched the premises of the Jain brothers and seized diaries that recorded payments to politicians and officials. The CBI filed charge sheets against several leaders, including L.K. Advani and V.C. Shukla, and a special court ordered charges to be framed in 1996. The Delhi High Court and later the Supreme Court held that the diary entries were not admissible as evidence, and the criminal proceedings ended without convictions; in the case of Balram Jakhar, the trial court acquitted him.
Who did it
Hawala diaries case, 1991–96
The evidence
- The CBI searched the premises of J.K. Jain on 3 May 1991 and seized diaries, notebooks, and files that recorded payments to politicians and officials. [3][4]
- The diaries recorded payments to politicians and officials, including alleged payments to L.K. Advani of Rs 60 lakh during April 1988 to April 1991. [3]
- The CBI filed a charge sheet against Balram Jakhar on 23 January 1996 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. [1]
- A special court ordered framing of charges against L.K. Advani, V.C. Shukla, and the Jain brothers on 8 May 1996. [3]
- The Delhi High Court on 5 May 1998 recorded that the CBI had no corroborative evidence against Balram Jakhar for Rs 51,24,800. [1]
Where it stands today
The criminal proceedings concluded; individual acquittals are documented only for Balram Jakhar. No appeals are indicated in the sources.
What was done
The CBI filed charge sheets against politicians and the Jain brothers under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A special court ordered framing of charges in 1996. The Delhi High Court and Supreme Court held that the Jain diaries were not legal evidence, and the trial court acquitted Balram Jakhar.
What it meant for the country
The case ended with the quashing of charges due to inadmissible evidence, but the sources do not record any monetary loss or harm to individuals.
- The Supreme Court's ruling prevented the diary entries from being used as evidence, contributing to the acquittal of Balram Jakhar and the end of the criminal case without convictions. [1]
Step by step
- 1991-05-03
The CBI searched the residence of J.K. Jain and seized diaries, notebooks, and files that recorded payments to politicians and officials. [3][4] - 1996-01-23
The CBI filed a charge sheet against Balram Jakhar under the Prevention of Corruption Act. [1] - 1996-05-08
A special court ordered framing of charges against L.K. Advani, V.C. Shukla, and the Jain brothers under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. [3] - 1996-05-24
Charges were framed against S.K. Jain, J.K. Jain, N.K. Jain, and B.R. Jain. [3] - 1996-08-19
Charges were framed against V.C. Shukla. [3] - 1997-04-01
The Delhi High Court delivered its judgment on revision petitions filed by L.K. Advani, V.C. Shukla, and the Jain brothers challenging the framing of charges. [3] - 1998-05-05
In criminal revision No. 473/97 before the Delhi High Court, the CBI stated that it had no corroborative evidence against Balram Jakhar for Rs 51,24,800. [1]
The documents
- [1] Income Tax Officer vs Balram Jakhar [Alongwith Wta No. ... on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] Mool Chand vs The State Through The Director, C.B.I. on 4 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] L.K. Advani vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 April, 1997 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Surendra Kumar Jain vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026
Hawala diaries case, 1991–96