What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The central government, by notification dated 23 August 1991, constituted a one-man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice M.C. Jain under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Commission held an inquiry, summoned witnesses under oath, and recorded statements including from Subramaniam Swamy and Ram Jethmalani. It submitted a final report which, along with the government's Memorandum of Action Taken, was laid on the Table of the Lok Sabha on 31 July 1998.

What it meant for the country

The sources document that the Commission was constituted, held an inquiry and submitted its final report to Parliament, but none of the cited documents record what the Commission actually found about officials or political actors, or what consequences followed, so the impact on the country cannot

• The Commission was given the mandate to probe whether persons or agencies not facing charges in the Designated Court had conceived, prepared or planned the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and whether there was a conspiracy, but the sources do not record the findings of its final report or any consequences that followed. [1][2]

Step by step

1. 1991-05-21
   Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, was assassinated at Sriperambudur. The central government subsequently constituted the Justice M.C. Jain Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the assassination. [1][2]
2. 1991-08-23
   The Central Government issued a notification under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 constituting the Justice M.C. Jain Commission of Inquiry with the mandate to make an inquiry into: (a) the consequences of events leading, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperambudur (other than matters covered by the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice J.S. Verma); and (b) whether any person or persons or agencies were responsible for conceiving, preparing and planning the assassination and whether there was any conspiracy in this behalf, and if so all its ramifications. [2]
3. 1993-07-02
   The Jain Commission, in an order, stated it would not go into areas covered by the chargesheet but would probe areas outside the chargesheet, holding an inquiry into persons and agencies, other than those against whom a chargesheet had been filed in the Designated Court, who were responsible for conceiving, preparing and planning the assassination. The Commission said it would take into account the sequence of events beginning from 1981 till 21 May 1991. [1]
4. 1995-03-20
   Subramaniam Swamy, summoned as a witness under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, stated on oath before the Jain Commission that he would not disclose the source of his information regarding what was going on in the LTTE, saying he would disclose the source only if the Commissioner, Justice M.C. Jain, called him personally. Swamy had earlier been reported in the press as stating that the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Ms. J. Jayalalitha, had been tipped off by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) about the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi around 17 April 1991 in Madras. [2]
5. 1998-07-31
   The final report of the Jain Commission and the Memorandum of Action Taken on the report were laid on the Table of the Lok Sabha. A motion was moved in the Lok Sabha: "That this House do consider the final Report of the Jain Commission and Memorandum of Action Taken on the Report laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 31.7.1998." [7]

The documents

1. [1] Jain Commission Of Enquiry vs Unknown on 2 July, 1993 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Ram Jethmalani vs Subramaniam Swamy on 3 January, 2006 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] J.K. Traders, Hyd. vs State Of A.P. And Others on 28 August, 2000 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Sanjeev Nanda vs The State on 20 July, 2009 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Delhi District Court - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] State Through Reference vs Ram Singh & Ors. on 13 March, 2014 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Moved The Motion For Consideration Of The Final Report Of Jain ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] 248Th Interim Report On Obsolete Laws - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Report No. 250 On Obsolete Laws - Warranting Immediate Repeal ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Gaurav Jain vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 July, 1997 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Vineet Narain & Others vs Union Of India & Another on 18 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Gaurav Jain vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 July, 1997 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament enacted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Act prohibits conversion of any place of worship and requires maintenance of the religious character of every place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947. Sections 3, 6 and 8 came into force on 18 September 1991 and the remaining provisions are deemed to have come into force on 11 July 1991.

What it meant for the country

The Act secures the maintenance of the religious character of all places of worship as at independence and, according to the judiciary, serves the secular character of the nation.

• The Act freezes the religious character of every place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947, preserving that character by prohibiting conversion and requiring its maintenance. [1]
• The Act provides for the abatement of pending suits and bars fresh suits or legal proceedings concerning conversion of the religious character of a place of worship, closing those legal routes. [1]
• The Supreme Court has recorded that conviction under section 6 of the Act disqualifies a person from being a member of Parliament or a state legislature. [10]
• A court has stated that the purpose of the Act is to maintain the secular character of the nation. [6]

Step by step

1. 1991-07-11
   Provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 other than sections 3, 6 and 8 are deemed to have come into force on this date. [1]
2. 1991-09-10
   The Union Minister of Home Affairs explained the purpose of the law on the floor of the Lok Sabha; a member, Shrimati Malini Bhattacharya, spoke in support of the 15 August 1947 cut-off date, as recorded in the Lok Sabha Debates. [1]
3. 1991-09-18
   Parliament enacted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Sections 3, 6 and 8 came into force at once on the date of enactment; the other provisions are deemed to have come into force on 11 July 1991. [1]
4. 2013-07-10
   The Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v Union of India recorded section 6 (offence of conversion of a place of worship) of the Act among the offences whose conviction disqualifies a person from being a member of Parliament or a state legislature. [10]
5. 2021-11-29
   The court in Tirthankara and Others v Union of India stated that the purpose of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 was to maintain the secular character of this nation. [6]

The documents

1. [1] U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board vs Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] S. Mahendran vs The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom ... on 5 April ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Committee Of Management, Anjuman ... vs Smt. Rakhi Singh And ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Mehek Maheshwari vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 11 October ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Vadilal Nandlal Shah And Ors vs Ramesh Dharamdas Mehta & Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Tirthankara And Ors. vs Uoi on 29 November, 2021 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Discussion regarding communal violence in different parts of the ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Amish Devgan vs Union Of India on 7 December, 2020 Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Sh Aqueel Ud Din Thr Sh Salem Ud Din, ... vs Delhi Wakf Board on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Lily Thomas vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2013 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] M.Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Mahant Suresh Das on 27 September, 2018 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Rajendra Singh vs . Zahoor Ahmad And Others on 1 April, 1950 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

Banks issued 'bank receipts' (paper promises that bonds had been sold) without real bonds behind them, gave brokers cheap short-term money, and paid cheques into brokers' own accounts. The government made a special court and a Custodian (an official who seizes the property of accused people) by an ordinance on 6 June 1992, later an Act. The Finance Ministry and RBI were criticised for slow action, not for taking money.

What it meant for the country

Bank money worth thousands of crores was put at risk. Parliament's committee found that the Finance Ministry and RBI failed to stop it. Courts convicted the broker and bank officials, but no minister faced trial.

• Banks and finance companies had about ₹4,024 crore at risk by the RBI committee's count. The National Housing Bank alone had ₹1,271.20 crore at risk. [1]
• Broker Harshad Mehta and bank and company officials were convicted. No minister was charged with a crime; the CBI's request to prosecute B. Shankaranand was not granted. [8][10][12]
• Two Congress ministers resigned in December 1994, a year after the JPC report. [7][11]
• More than 30 years later, the Special Court was still deciding, in June 2024, what to do with shares seized from the Harshad Mehta group. [3]

Step by step

1. 1992-04-30
   The RBI sets up a committee under Deputy Governor R. Janakiraman to look into banks' securities deals, after checks at the State Bank of India. [1]
2. 1992-06-06
   The government makes an ordinance creating a Special Court and a Custodian to seize the property of accused people. [2]
3. 1992-08-06
   The Lok Sabha votes to set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee, chaired by Ram Niwas Mirdha. [1]
4. 1992-08-18
   The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 becomes law, replacing the ordinance. [2]
5. 1993-12-21
   The JPC report is placed in Parliament. Finance Minister Manmohan Singh offers to resign; he stays in office. [1][10]
6. 1993-12-30
   Rameshwar Thakur, by then a junior Rural Development minister, tells the Lok Sabha the JPC was unhappy with a 27-day delay on a file. He says he cleared it to the Finance Minister the day he got it, 6 May 1992. [5]
7. 1994-07-27
   MPs protest in the Lok Sabha that the government's Action Taken Report rejects parts of the JPC report. Vajpayee says the ministers have been cleared. [6]
8. 1994-12
   B. Shankaranand (by then Health Minister) and Rameshwar Thakur resign. As reported by The Moscow Times, both had been named in the securities matter. [7][11]
9. 1999-09-28
   The Special Court in Bombay convicts Harshad Mehta and three bank and company officials in the Maruti Udyog funds case. [8][9]
10. 2003-01-14
    The Supreme Court decides the appeals. Mehta had died in custody on 31 December 2001; his wife was allowed to carry on his appeal. As summarised by Caseon, the convictions were upheld. [8][12]

The documents

1. [1] Report of the Joint Committee to Enquire into Irregularities in Securities and Banking Transactions, Vol. I (21 December 1993) Parliament, Lok Sabha Secretariat (Parliament Digital Library)
2. [2] The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (Act 27 of 1992) Official, India Code, Government of India
3. [3] Special Court (TORTS) common judgment of 14 June 2024 in MA 54 of 2018 (Custodian v. Apollo Tyres and others) Court, Special Court, Bombay (via Department of Financial Services)
4. [4] Lok Sabha debate on the JPC report, 29 December 1993 Parliament, Lok Sabha Debates (Parliament Digital Library)
5. [5] Lok Sabha debate on the JPC report, with personal explanation by Rameshwar Thakur, 30 December 1993 Parliament, Lok Sabha Debates (Parliament Digital Library)
6. [6] Lok Sabha proceedings on the Action Taken Report on the JPC, 27 July 1994 Parliament, Lok Sabha Debates (Parliament Digital Library)
7. [7] Lok Sabha Debates, 23 December 1994 Parliament, Lok Sabha Debates (Parliament Digital Library)
8. [8] Ram Narain Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation, judgment of 14 January 2003 Court, Supreme Court of India (via Indian Kanoon)
9. [9] Harshad Mehta, three others convicted (Nation page, 2 November 1999) Press, The Tribune
10. [10] How The Government Protects A Politician From Prosecution (Outlook, 23 July 2001) Press, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta / Outlook
11. [11] Indian Ministers Resign (23 December 1994) Press, The Moscow Times
12. [12] Ram Narain Popli vs Central Bureau of Investigation (case summary and judgment) Court, Supreme Court of India (via Caseon)

Compiled from the documents cited, 9 Oct 2026

What was done

The central government appointed Justice Liberhan on 16 December 1992 and set five terms of inquiry. The commission called for affidavits and information from persons acquainted with the facts. Its report was laid in the Lok Sabha on 24 November 2009; it recorded that the central and Uttar Pradesh governments did not produce evidence and, according to India Today, found the demolition was meticulously planned and that Uma Bharti took responsibility.

What it meant for the country

The record shows the demolition was followed by communal violence in several states and President's rule in Uttar Pradesh, and the inquiry was slowed by the governments' failure to produce evidence.

• The Supreme Court recorded that after the demolition the communal situation in the country deteriorated sharply and communal violence spread in several other states, and that President's rule was imposed in Uttar Pradesh as a consequence of the events at Ayodhya. [8]
• The Commission's report, as quoted in Lok Sabha, recorded that the Central Government and UP Government could not be persuaded to produce evidence under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and that leaders who had spoken to the press about knowledge of the conspiracy denied it on oath. [2]

Step by step

1. 1992-12-16
   The Union Home Ministry issued notification 913(E) appointing Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, a sitting judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as a one-man Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The terms were: (a) sequence of events leading to and facts and circumstances relating to destruction of the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid structure on 6 December 1992; (b) role played by the Chief Minister, members of the Council of Ministers, officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and by individuals, concerned organisations and agencies; (c) deficiencies in security measures and other arrangements of the Uttar Pradesh Government; (d) sequence of events and facts relating to the assault on media persons; (e) any other matters related to the inquiry. The commission was to report as soon as possible but not later than three months. [1]
2. 1993-06-11
   The Commission issued a notification under Clause (b) of Rule 5(2) of the Commission of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 and notices under Rule 5 read with Order 10 of the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry (Regulation of Procedure) Order, 1993, calling upon certain individuals to furnish information or facts by affidavit. [1]
3. 2009-11-24
   The report of the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry and the Memorandum of Action Taken by the Government on the report were laid on the table of the Lok Sabha. As reported by India Today, the report described the demolition as a 'meticulously planned' act and said BJP leader Uma Bharti had 'categorically' taken responsibility for the incident. [2][3][11]
4. 2009-12-07
   The Lok Sabha began discussion on the report and the memorandum of action taken. [3]
5. 2009-12-08
   Further discussion was held. Members quoted from the report, including page 998 paragraph 178.19 that the Central Government and the UP Government could not be persuaded to produce evidence in accordance with the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952; and page 995 paragraph 178.42 that leaders including Mulayam Singh, Kalyan Singh and many others stated in the press about their knowledge of the conspiracy for the demolition but on oath before the Commission denied any such knowledge. [2]

The documents

1. [1] Prabhat Kumar vs The Liberhan Ayodhya Commission Of ... on 1 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Further Discussion On The Report Of The Liberhan Ayodhya ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Discussion On The Report Of The Liberhan Ayodhya Commission ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Regarding Trial Of Accused In The Babri Masjid Demolition ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Pintoo Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] State (Tr)Central Bureau Of ... vs Shri Kalyan Singh (Former ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Motion Regarding Calling Upon The Prime Minister To Drop ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Etc, Mohd. Aslam, ... vs Union Of India ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Heritage & Culture Forum vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 July ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Liberhan Commission - Wikipedia Web, en.wikipedia.org
11. [11] Babri Masjid Demolition: Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan ... Press, indiatoday.in

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026