What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

Parliament enacted the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, which constituted the National Commission for Minorities and assigned it functions including evaluating minority development, monitoring safeguards, and looking into complaints. The Central Government made rules in 1995 for the Commission's accounts, audit and annual report.

What it meant for the country

The documents establish that a national body with civil-court powers was created to protect minority rights, but they do not record any outcomes such as complaints resolved, reports issued, or funds spent.

• The Act created the National Commission for Minorities, a body with the powers of a civil court to summon and examine people on oath, require the production of documents, receive evidence on affidavits, and requisition public records when evaluating minority development, monitoring safeguards, or looking into complaints of deprivation of rights. [1][10]
• The Act requires the Central Government to lay the Commission's recommendations before each House of Parliament with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed and the reasons for any non-acceptance; recommendations concerning a State are to be laid before that State's legislature in the same way. [1][2][8]
• The Central Government is to pay grants to the Commission, after appropriation by Parliament, for the purposes of the Act. [1]

Step by step

1. 1992
   The National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 was enacted. It defines "minority" as a community notified as such by the Central Government, and provides for a Commission consisting of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and five Members nominated by the Central Government, with five Members including the Chairperson from minority communities. [1][3][5][7]
2. 1995
   The Central Government made the National Commission for Minorities (Annual Statement of Accounts, Audit and Annual Report) Rules, 1995, under Section 15 read with Section 11(1) and Section 12 of the Act. The rules require the Commission's accounts to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and an annual report to be prepared and submitted to the Central Government. [9][12]

The documents

1. [1] The National Commission For Minorities Act, 1992 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 9 in The National Commission For Minorities Act, 1992 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 2 in The National Commission For Minorities Act, 1992 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 5 in The National Commission For Minorities Act, 1992 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 3 in The National Commission For Minorities Act, 1992 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 14 in The National Commission For Minorities Act, 1992 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 2 (c) in The National Commission For Minorities Act, 1992 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Section 9 in The National Commission For Minorities Act, 1992 Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] The National Commission For Minorities (Annual Statement Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Section 9 (4) in The National Commission For Minorities Act, 1992 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Section 9 (3) in The National Commission For Minorities Act, 1992 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Section 1922 in The National Commission For Minorities ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

The Maharashtra government appointed the Srikrishna Commission on 25 January 1993, then in 1996 issued a notification to discontinue the inquiry, but the commission later submitted its report on 16 February 1998. The state government initially did not accept the report's findings; after petitions in the Supreme Court, it referred the report to the Crime Branch CID in 2000, set up a Special Task Force, and in 2008 consented to a CBI inquiry into the Hari Masjid firing.

What it meant for the country

The record shows at least 870 people were killed and 2,298 injured in the Bombay riots, and the commission found that police firing in two incidents was unjustified, including one that killed nine people.

• The riots left 870 people dead and 2,298 injured according to figures recorded by the Bombay High Court (271 killed in December 1992 and 599 in January 1993; 1058 injured in December and 1240 in January). [4]
• The Srikrishna Commission found that police firing at Suleman Bakery on 9 January 1993 was totally unjustified and that the police personnel had committed murder of nine persons. [10]
• The Srikrishna Commission found that the firing by police including Sub Inspector Kapse at Hari Masjid was unjustified and that the officer's behaviour was inhuman and brutal. [5]

Step by step

1. 1992-12-06
   The Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was demolished; riots began in Bombay on or after this date. [2]
2. 1993-01-09
   Police opened fire at Suleman Bakery in Bombay; nine people died in the firing. [10]
3. 1993-01-10
   Police opened fire near Hari Masjid, Sewree, Bombay. [5]
4. 1993-01-25
   Government of Maharashtra appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the riots of December 1992 and January 1993. [2][5][8][11]
5. 1993-07
   The Srikrishna Commission commenced work, called for affidavits and recorded statements of about 400 witnesses and police officers. [2]
6. 1996-01-23
   The Government of Maharashtra issued a notification discontinuing the inquiry by the Srikrishna Commission. [3]
7. 1998-02-16
   The Srikrishna Commission submitted its report. [5][10]
8. 1998-06-23
   The Bombay High Court recorded that 271 people were killed in December 1992 and 599 in January 1993, that 1058 were injured in December and 1240 in January, and that 2570 persons were arrested in December and 6103 in January. [4]
9. 1998-08-06
   The Srikrishna Commission report was taken up in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. [5][6]
10. 1998-12-16
    The Srikrishna Commission report was published. [5][8]
11. 2000-01-07
    The State of Maharashtra stated before the Supreme Court that it would refer the report and conclusions of the Srikrishna Commission to the Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai for further investigation. [5][8][10]
12. 2000-08-31
    The Government of Maharashtra constituted a Special Task Force for further investigation and action in accordance with law on possible offences concluded by the Commission report. [5]
13. 2001-01-11
    The Additional Commissioner of Police, Special Task Force, submitted a report on the conclusions of the Srikrishna Commission. [5]
14. 2001-05-25
    An affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court placing the Special Task Force findings before the Court. [5]
15. 2008-02-17
    The Government of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, consenting to an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the Hari Masjid incident dealt with in paragraphs 24.23 to 24.25 of the Srikrishna Commission Report, Volume II. [5][8]
16. 2008-12-18
    The Bombay High Court directed a CBI investigation into the Hari Masjid incident; the Supreme Court later affirmed this order. [5][8]

The documents

1. [1] Need To Place The Report Of Shrikrishan Commission On Riots ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Gangadhar Laxman Reddy vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] The Committee For The Protection Of ... vs The Chief Minister ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Rusy Noshirvan Mody & Another vs The State Of Maharashtra ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Farook Mohammed Kasim Mapkar vs The Commissioner Of Police on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Requests The Central Government To Deploy More Forces As Sri ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Maharashtra Chamber Of Housing ... vs The State Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] State Of Maharashtra vs Farook Mohammed Kasim Mapkar & Ors on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Mobina Begum/Indian Assn. For ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Ashfaque Ahmed vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2011 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Shakeel Ahmad vs Union Of India . on 4 November, 2022 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Ms.Anju Rajbhar vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 4 July, 2013 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament enacted the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 as Act 27 of 1993, creating a statutory commission. Section 9 directed the Commission to examine inclusion requests and over-inclusion or under-inclusion complaints and made its advice ordinarily binding on the Central Government. In 2017, Bills were introduced to repeal the 1993 Act and give the Commission constitutional status; the 102nd Constitutional Amendment later elevated it as reported.

What it meant for the country

The cited documents record an institutional gain: a statutory body with ordinarily binding advice on OBC list inclusion was created and later given constitutional status, though no outcome figures are provided.

• The creation of the Commission made OBC list inclusion and exclusion decisions subject to a body whose advice under Section 9(2) was "ordinarily binding" on the Central Government. [4]
• The 102nd Constitutional Amendment inserted Article 338B, giving the National Commission for Backward Classes constitutional status, as reported. [2]

Step by step

1. 1992-11-16
   The Supreme Court, in its judgment on matters arising from reservation orders under Article 16(4), directed the Government of India to constitute a permanent body within four months for examining requests for inclusion and exclusion in the backward classes list. [1][2]
2. 1993
   The National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 (27 of 1993) was enacted, establishing the National Commission for Backward Classes as a statutory body. [1][2]
3. 1993
   Section 9 of the Act empowered the Commission to examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward class in the lists, hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion, and tender advice to the Central Government; Sub-section (2) made the advice ordinarily binding on the Central Government. [4][5]
4. 2017
   The National Commission for Backward Classes (Repeal) Bill, 2017 was introduced in Lok Sabha to repeal the 1993 Act, and the Constitution (123rd Amendment) Bill, 2017 was introduced alongside to give the Commission constitutional status. [6][7]
5. 2018
   The National Commission for Backward Classes was elevated to a constitutional body by the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, which inserted Article 338B, as reported by anantamias.com. [2]

The documents

1. [1] The National Commission For Backward Classes Act, 1993 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] National Commission for Backward Classes — 102nd Amendment, Functions ... Web, anantamias.com
3. [3] NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (NCBC) - StudyOAS Web, studyoas.in
4. [4] Section 9 in The National Commission For Backward Classes Act, 1993 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] National Commission for Backward Classes - Press Information Bureau Official, pib.gov.in
6. [6] The National Commission for Backward Classes (Repeal) Bill, 2017 Research, prsindia.org
7. [7] The Constitution (123rd Amendment) Bill, 2017 - PRS Legislative Research Research, prsindia.org
8. [8] The Constitution (123 - PRS Legislative Research Research, prsindia.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

Union governments allocated coal blocks through the Screening Committee and Government Dispensation Route from 1993. The Supreme Court declared these allocations arbitrary and illegal on 25 August 2014 and cancelled 214 blocks on 24 September 2014. A Delhi court convicted former coal secretary H.C. Gupta and former joint secretary K.S. Kropha on 8 August 2022 for conspiring to cheat the government in the Lohara East coal block allocation.

What it meant for the country

The record shows loss of public resources and illegal allocation, with the CBI stating a loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the exchequer and the Supreme Court cancelling 214 coal block allocations.

• The CBI stated that a loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore was caused to the government exchequer due to the coal block allocation. [4]
• The cancellation left 42 functional or near-functional coal blocks with a six-month wind-down period and a fine of ₹295 per metric ton of coal mined, and required the government to invite bids for re-allocation of the cancelled blocks. [5][6]
• Former coal secretary H.C. Gupta was sentenced to three years imprisonment and fined ₹1 lakh; former joint secretary K.S. Kropha was sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined ₹50,000. [4]
• The Supreme Court ordered CBI criminal investigations into wrongdoing including bribery and illegal gratification, potentially involving international joint venture partners in protracted proceedings. [5][6]

Step by step

1. 2014-08-25
   The Supreme Court, in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 516, declared all coal block allocations made between 1993 and 2011 through the Screening Committee and Government Dispensation Route arbitrary and illegal, except those made through competitive bidding. [1][7]
2. 2014-09-24
   The Supreme Court cancelled 214 out of 218 coal block allocations. Press Information Bureau releases state the number as 204 out of 218. The Court allowed 42 coal blocks with functional or near-functional end-use plants a six-month window to wind down, with cancellation effective 31 March 2015, and imposed a fine of ₹295 per metric ton of coal mined from the date of commissioning. The Court also ordered CBI criminal investigations into wrongdoing including bribery and illegal gratification. [3][5][6][8][9]
3. 2022-08-08
   A Delhi court (Special Judge Arun Bhardwaj) sentenced former coal secretary H.C. Gupta to three years imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh, and former joint secretary K.S. Kropha to two years imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, for conspiring to cheat the government in the allocation of the Lohara East coal block to Grace Industries Limited. The CBI submitted that a loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore was caused to the government exchequer due to the coal block allocation. [4]

The documents

1. [1] Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary And Others - CaseMine Court, casemine.com
2. [2] Sharma vs. Principal Secretary Judgment | PDF | Coal Mining | Coal - Scribd Web, scribd.com
3. [3] Supreme Court scraps 214 coal blocks, leaves 1 lakh crore, 30000 MW ... Press, indianexpress.com
4. [4] [Coal Scam] Former coal secretary HC Gupta sentenced to three years ... Press, barandbench.com
5. [5] Supreme Court of India Cancels 214 Coal Block Allocations Web, duanemorris.com
6. [6] Supreme Court Of India Cancels 214 Coal Block Allocations Web, mondaq.com
7. [7] Unlawful allocation and Executive Overreach: Analysing the Supreme ... Web, lawfullegal.in
8. [8] Allocation of Coal Blocks - Press Information Bureau Official, pib.gov.in
9. [9] Auction of Coal Blocks - Press Information Bureau Official, pib.gov.in
10. [10] Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principal Secretary on 25 July, 2014 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principal Secretary on 9 September, 2014 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Supreme Court of India cancels 214 coal block allocations Web, lexology.com

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026