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₹60 lakh withdrawn from SBI, mostly recovered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
1996
1996
Former telecom minister Sukh Ram: the case over wealth far beyond his income
Sukh Ram was a former telecom minister. In 1996 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the central police agency, filed a case saying he owned far more than his known income could explain. In 2007 he was still on trial in that case. In a separate case about buying telecom equipment, the Delhi High Court upheld his conviction in December 2011, as reported.
Accused in court, not yet provenCBI disproportionate assets case against former communications minister Sukh Ram
1996
Former telecom minister Sukh Ram: the case over wealth far beyond his income
Sukh Ram was a former telecom minister. In 1996 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the central police agency, filed a case saying he owned far more than his known income could explain. In 2007 he was still on trial in that case. In a separate case about buying telecom equipment, the Delhi High Court upheld his conviction in December 2011, as reported.
Accused in court, not yet provenRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyInvestigators have filed charges in court. The trial is not over, so nobody has been found guilty.
What happened
Sukh Ram was a former telecom minister. In 1996 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the central police agency, filed a case saying he owned far more than his known income could explain. In 2007 he was still on trial in that case. In a separate case about buying telecom equipment, the Delhi High Court upheld his conviction in December 2011, as reported.
Who did it
CBI disproportionate assets case against former communications minister Sukh Ram
The evidence
- FIR No. … RC-4A/96 was registered against Sukh Ram under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on assets found and those coming to the CBI's knowledge that were allegedly substantially disproportionate to his known sources of income. [1]
- In 2007, Sukh Ram was an accused facing trial in case RC4(A)/96 and applied for early disposal, stating his advanced age and poor state of health. [4]
Where it stands today
In the disproportionate-assets case (RC4(A)/96), trial was pending before a Special Judge as of 9 October 2007, and the Delhi High Court was considering a transfer petition. In the separate equipment supply case, the Delhi High Court upheld convictions on 21 December 2011, as reported by Economic Times.
What was done
The CBI registered FIR No. … RC-4A/96 against Sukh Ram under the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged disproportionate assets. In 2007, Sukh Ram, as an accused facing trial, applied for early disposal of the case, citing advanced age and poor health.
Step by step
- 2007-10-09
Delhi High Court recorded a petition by Sukh Ram for transfer of case No. RC4(A)/96ACU-IV under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 from a particular Special Judge, and noted his application for early disposal citing advanced age and poor health. [4] - 2011-12-21
As reported by Economic Times, the Delhi High Court upheld convictions of former Telecom Minister Sukh Ram, Runu Ghosh and P Rama Rao in the telecom scam case related to an equipment supply deal between Advanced Radio Masts Pvt Ltd and the Telecom Department. [3]
The documents
- [1] Sukh Ram v. State Through Cbi | Delhi High Court | Judgment ... Court, casemine.com
- [2] Sukh Ram appeals in HC against sentence - Times of India Press, timesofindia.indiatimes.com
- [3] 1993 telecom scam: Supreme Court judge recuses from hearing Runu Ghosh ... Press, economictimes.indiatimes.com
- [4] Sh. Sukh Ram vs Cbi on 9 October, 2007 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Sukh Ram vs State Through Central Bureau Of ... on 14 October, 1996 Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026
CBI disproportionate assets case against former communications minister Sukh Ram1996
J&K State Autonomy Committee report, 2000
Jammu and Kashmir had a special constitutional position, and after 1953 many central laws were applied to the state with the state assembly's agreement. In the late 1990s the state government set up a State Autonomy Committee to look at restoring the position before 1953. The committee's report, which came in April 1999, recommended removing from the state all central subjects except defence, external affairs and communications. On 27 June 2000 the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed a resolution endorsing the report and asking the Union government to implement it. The Union Cabinet rejected the resolution, and Parliament discussed it in July and August 2000. The demand was not implemented.
Closed without a verdictJammu and Kashmir State Autonomy Committee
1996
J&K State Autonomy Committee report, 2000
Jammu and Kashmir had a special constitutional position, and after 1953 many central laws were applied to the state with the state assembly's agreement. In the late 1990s the state government set up a State Autonomy Committee to look at restoring the position before 1953. The committee's report, which came in April 1999, recommended removing from the state all central subjects except defence, external affairs and communications. On 27 June 2000 the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed a resolution endorsing the report and asking the Union government to implement it. The Union Cabinet rejected the resolution, and Parliament discussed it in July and August 2000. The demand was not implemented.
Closed without a verdictRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyThe proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
Jammu and Kashmir had a special constitutional position, and after 1953 many central laws were applied to the state with the state assembly's agreement. In the late 1990s the state government set up a State Autonomy Committee to look at restoring the position before 1953. The committee's report, which came in April 1999, recommended removing from the state all central subjects except defence, external affairs and communications. On 27 June 2000 the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed a resolution endorsing the report and asking the Union government to implement it. The Union Cabinet rejected the resolution, and Parliament discussed it in July and August 2000. The demand was not implemented.
Who did it
Jammu and Kashmir State Autonomy Committee
The evidence
- The Jammu and Kashmir government set up a State Autonomy Committee and a Regional Autonomy Committee. [1]
- The State Autonomy Committee report came in April 1999. [1]
- The report recommended excluding from application to the State the matters in the Union List not connected with Defence, External Affairs and Communications, or ancillary, but made applicable. [1]
- The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed a resolution on 27 June 2000 demanding autonomy and restoration of pre-1953 status. [5]
- The Assembly resolution endorsed the State Autonomy Committee recommendations and asked the Union Government to implement them. [2]
Where it stands today
Concluded: Union Cabinet rejection of the resolution (4 July 2000); Lok Sabha discussion (25 July to 3 August 2000). No pending proceeding is shown in the sources.
What was done
The Jammu and Kashmir government set up the State Autonomy Committee. The committee recommended restoring pre-1953 autonomy by excluding Union List subjects other than defence, external affairs and communications. The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed a resolution on 27 June 2000 endorsing the recommendations and asking the Union government to implement them. The Union Cabinet rejected the resolution.
What it meant for the country
The Union Cabinet rejected the resolution, so the pre-1953 autonomy was not restored; the sources do not record any further measurable consequences.
- The Union Cabinet's rejection meant the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly's demand for restoration of pre-1953 autonomy was not implemented, leaving the existing constitutional arrangements in place. [2][5]
- Lok Sabha discussed the resolution but the sources do not record any vote or further decision, so no change followed. [1][5]
Step by step
- 1947-10-27
Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, making Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of the Indian Union. [1] - 1999-04
The State Autonomy Committee's report came, recommending that matters in the Union List not connected with Defence, External Affairs and Communications, or ancillary, but made applicable to the State, should be excluded from application to the State. [1] - 2000-06-27
The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed a resolution demanding autonomy and restoration of pre-1953 status for Jammu and Kashmir. [5] - 2000-06-27
The Assembly resolution endorsed the State Autonomy Committee recommendations and asked the Union Government to implement them. [2] - 2000-07-04
The Lok Sabha debate records that the Union Cabinet rejected the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly's autonomy resolution on 4 July 2000. [1][2][5] - 2000-07-25
Lok Sabha members sought discussion on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly resolution; the Speaker took up notices. [2] - 2000-07-26
Lok Sabha began discussion on the resolution; the discussion was not concluded that day. [1] - 2000-08-03
Further discussion in Lok Sabha on the resolution concluded. [5]
The documents
- [1] Discussion Regarding Resolution Passed By Jammu And Kashmir Legislative ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] Regarding Passing Of A Resolution By The Jammu And Kashmir Legislative ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 May, 2000 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Kunal Nanda vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 April, 2000 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Further Discussion Regarding Resolution Passed By Jammu And Kashmir ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2000 Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Jammu and Kashmir State Autonomy Committee1996
Harm to the nationSukh Ram: the telecom equipment case and the cash found, 1996
Sukh Ram was a Union Minister of State for Communications from January 1993 to May 1996. In August 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation searched his homes and found large amounts of cash. He was prosecuted for having assets beyond his known income and for decisions on telecom equipment contracts. In February 2009 a Delhi trial court convicted him in the assets case and sentenced him to three years in prison; an appeal was pending in the Delhi High Court as of September 2009.
Found guilty by a courtSukh Ram (Minister of Communications, 1993–96)
1996
Harm to the nationSukh Ram: the telecom equipment case and the cash found, 1996
Sukh Ram was a Union Minister of State for Communications from January 1993 to May 1996. In August 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation searched his homes and found large amounts of cash. He was prosecuted for having assets beyond his known income and for decisions on telecom equipment contracts. In February 2009 a Delhi trial court convicted him in the assets case and sentenced him to three years in prison; an appeal was pending in the Delhi High Court as of September 2009.
Found guilty by a courtRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyA court held a trial and found the person guilty.
What happened
Sukh Ram was a Union Minister of State for Communications from January 1993 to May 1996. In August 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation searched his homes and found large amounts of cash. He was prosecuted for having assets beyond his known income and for decisions on telecom equipment contracts. In February 2009 a Delhi trial court convicted him in the assets case and sentenced him to three years in prison; an appeal was pending in the Delhi High Court as of September 2009.
Who did it
Sukh Ram (Minister of Communications, 1993–96)
The evidence
- Cash recovered from 12 Safdarjung Lane, Delhi was ₹2,45,28,844 and from the Mandi house was ₹1,13,51,520. [2]
- The Income Tax Department treated ₹3,61,80,414 as unexplained cash under Section 69A. [3]
- Known income during the check period 20 June 1991 to 16 August 1996 was ₹84,98,180. [2]
- Sukh Ram was Minister of State for Communications from 18 January 1993 to 16 May 1996. [4]
- The CBI registered the telecom equipment case on 8 August 1996. [4]
Where it stands today
The 2009 disproportionate assets conviction was under appeal in Delhi High Court as of 25 September 2009 (Crl. A. 287/2009). A later Delhi High Court order of 21 December 2011 in Sukh Ram v CBI is listed in the sources but its text is not provided. The Enforcement Directorate matter was before Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 5536/2016, decided on 28 January 2019.
What was done
As minister, Sukh Ram directed orders for telecom equipment. The CBI searched his residences on 16 August 1996 and recovered cash. A Delhi trial court convicted him on 20 February 2009 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income and sentenced him on 25 February 2009 to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
What it meant for the country
The record shows a former communications minister convicted for holding assets far beyond his known income, with large amounts of cash seized and tax assessed, though an appeal was pending.
- The CBI recovered ₹2,45,28,844 from his Delhi residence and ₹1,13,51,520 from his Mandi house on 16 August 1996. [2]
- The Income Tax Department treated ₹3,61,80,414 as unexplained cash under Section 69A. [3]
- A Delhi trial court sentenced Sukh Ram to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine in 2009. [4]
- The Enforcement Directorate alleged he received ₹1,39,35,000 between March and April 1995 without RBI permission. [5]
Step by step
- 1993-01-18
Sukh Ram became Union Minister of State for Communications with independent charge; he held the post until 16 May 1996. [4] - 1996-08-08
CBI registered a telecom equipment case (RC 3(A)/96/ACU-IV) under Section 120B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Sukh Ram and Runu Ghosh. [4] - 1996-08-16
CBI searched Sukh Ram's residences. It recovered ₹2,45,28,844 from 12 Safdarjung Lane, Delhi and ₹1,13,51,520 from his house in Mandi. The Income Tax Department joined the search and seized cash. [2][3][5] - 1996-08-27
CBI registered a separate disproportionate assets case (RC-IVA/96/ACU-IV) against Sukh Ram. [4] - 1996-09-18
Sukh Ram was arrested in the disproportionate assets case and was in custody. [1] - 1996-10-01
Delhi High Court directed that Sukh Ram be admitted to bail in the disproportionate assets case. [1] - 1997-06-09
Charge sheet was filed against Sukh Ram in the disproportionate assets case. [2] - 2009-02-20
A Delhi trial court convicted Sukh Ram under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the disproportionate assets case. [4] - 2009-02-25
The same court sentenced Sukh Ram to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, with six months' simple imprisonment in default. [4][2] - 2009-09-25
Delhi High Court noted that Sukh Ram's appeal (Crl. A. 287/2009) against the 2009 conviction had been admitted and was pending. [4] - 2019-01-28
Delhi High Court in Sukh Ram v Directorate of Enforcement recorded that the CBI search on 16 August 1996 recovered ₹2,45,28,844 and documents, and that the Enforcement Directorate alleged Sukh Ram received ₹1,39,35,000 between March 1995 and 17 April 1995 without RBI permission. [5]
The documents
- [1] Sukh Ram vs State (Central Bureau Of ... on 1 October, 1996 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [2] Cb I vs . Sukh Ram S/O Late Sh. Bhav Dev, R/O , on 25 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [3] Sukh Ram vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [4] Smt. Runu Ghosh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 25 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
- [5] Sukh Ram vs Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr on 28 January, 2019 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [6] Sukh Ram vs C.B.I. on 21 December, 2011 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [7] State vs Sukhram And Others on 22 January, 2025 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [8] State vs Sukh Ram Etc. ( Page No 1 Of 9 ) on 22 October, 2011 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [9] Sunil Kumar Sharma vs State Nct Of Delhi on 6 July, 2011 Court, indiankanoon.org
- [10] Ram Charan vs Sukhram on 17 July, 2025 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [11] Sukh Ram vs State Of U. P on 28 November, 1973 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
- [12] The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sukh Ram on 19 August, 2025 Court, indiankanoon.org
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
Sukh Ram (Minister of Communications, 1993–96)1996
Harm to the nationUrea import from Karsan, 1995: ₹133 crore paid, no urea came; eight convicted in 2018
In 1995 NFL agreed to buy 2 lakh tonnes of urea (a farm fertiliser) from a Turkish company, Karsan. It paid nearly the full price, about $38 million or ₹133 crore, in advance, and no urea came. The CBI, the central police agency, took up the case in 1996. In July 2018, 22 years later, a Delhi court convicted eight people, including two Karsan bosses, two NFL officials, the Prime Minister's relative and the minister's son. Only a small part of the money has been recovered.
Found guilty by a courtP.V. Narasimha Rao government; National Fertilizers Limited (public sector); relatives of the Prime Minister and the Fertilisers Minister
1996
Harm to the nationUrea import from Karsan, 1995: ₹133 crore paid, no urea came; eight convicted in 2018
In 1995 NFL agreed to buy 2 lakh tonnes of urea (a farm fertiliser) from a Turkish company, Karsan. It paid nearly the full price, about $38 million or ₹133 crore, in advance, and no urea came. The CBI, the central police agency, took up the case in 1996. In July 2018, 22 years later, a Delhi court convicted eight people, including two Karsan bosses, two NFL officials, the Prime Minister's relative and the minister's son. Only a small part of the money has been recovered.
Found guilty by a courtRead the full story, step by stepHide the full storyA court held a trial and found the person guilty.
What happened
In 1995 NFL agreed to buy 2 lakh tonnes of urea (a farm fertiliser) from a Turkish company, Karsan. It paid nearly the full price, about $38 million or ₹133 crore, in advance, and no urea came. The CBI, the central police agency, took up the case in 1996. In July 2018, 22 years later, a Delhi court convicted eight people, including two Karsan bosses, two NFL officials, the Prime Minister's relative and the minister's son. Only a small part of the money has been recovered.
Who did it
National Fertilizers Limited (NFL), a government-owned company, made the deal. Its head, C.K. Ramakrishnan, and Executive Director D.S. Kanwar approved it; they were company officials, not party members. The government was the Congress government of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, with Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav as Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers (1994–96). The minister and the Prime Minister were not charged. The PM's relative B. Sanjeeva Rao and the minister's son Prakash Chandra Yadav, a member of the Bihar Legislative Council, were charged and convicted.
The evidence
- The Minister of State for Fertilisers told the Lok Sabha in July 1996 that NFL's then head made the deal with one party without tenders, beyond his powers and without the Board. US$37.62 million was paid to Karsan's bank on 14 November 1995. No urea was supplied by the due date of 4 May 1996, and the insurance covered only sea risks, not non-delivery. [1]
- The trial judgment records that Prakash Chandra Yadav is the son of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, “Minister of Chemicals & Fertilizers at the relevant time”. The CBI said he kept NFL's executive director informed and asked for US$2 lakh to be sent to a company. The judgment records that B. Sanjeeva Rao, a close relative of the Prime Minister, was accused of getting about ₹1.02 crore of the money. Both denied the charges. [4]
- Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav was Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers from 1994 to 1996, the Lok Sabha recorded when he died. He was not an accused in the case. [3][4]
- As reported by Orissa Post (PTI), the special CBI court gave the two Karsan executives six years in prison and a ₹100 crore penalty; NFL's C.K. Ramakrishnan and D.S. Kanwar three years and ₹6 lakh each; agent M. Sambasiva Rao and D. Mallesham Goud three years and ₹5 crore each; and Sanjeeva Rao and Prakash Chandra Yadav three years and ₹1 crore each. (Millennium Post reported Sanjeeva Rao's fine as ₹5 crore.) [5][7]
- As reported by Millennium Post, P.V. Prabhakar Rao, the Prime Minister's son, was accused in the press of helping the deal but was not prosecuted; the CBI reportedly found nothing against him. [7]
- The government told the Lok Sabha in 2007 that an international arbitration award of 3 December 1996 gave NFL about US$40.69 million, but only about ₹1.08 crore had been recovered; the rest had been moved to accounts in several countries. [2]
Where it stands today
As checked on 9 October 2026: eight accused stand convicted by the special CBI court in Delhi (judgment 9 July 2018, sentences 12 July 2018). We found no report of a High Court ruling on any appeal against these convictions. P.V. Narasimha Rao and Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav were never charged. A second, linked urea case, in which a Delhi court refused the CBI's closure report in April 2022, appears still pending; we found no later report on it.
What was done
NFL signed with Karsan without inviting other bids and without telling its Board, and paid in advance with insurance that did not cover non-delivery, as the government told Parliament in 1996. The money was sent on 14 November 1995 and moved to a bank in Geneva. The CBI said part of it came back to people in India through hawala (unofficial money transfer) channels.
What it meant for the country
A public company lost about ₹133 crore and recovered little of it. A court convicted eight people, including the relatives of the Prime Minister and the Fertilisers Minister, but only after 22 years.
- NFL, a public company, paid about ₹133 crore and got no urea under the contract. [1][4]
- By 2007 only about ₹1.08 crore had been recovered abroad, despite an arbitration award of about US$40.69 million. [2]
- Eight people were convicted in 2018, 22 years after the case began. [4][5]
- A second, linked case lay untouched by the CBI for about 22 years, which the court called “legally unacceptable”. [10]
Step by step
- 1995-07-27
NFL signs its first contract with Karsan for 2 lakh tonnes of urea at US$190 a tonne. A second contract is signed on 9 November 1995. [4] - 1995-11-14
NFL sends US$37.62 million (about ₹133 crore) to Karsan in advance. [1][4] - 1996-04-25
The government gives the case to the CBI. [1] - 1996-05-19
The CBI registers the case and arrests C.K. Ramakrishnan and D.S. Kanwar. An arrest is not a finding of guilt. The government suspends Ramakrishnan on 24 May. [1][5] - 1996-12-03
An International Chamber of Commerce tribunal rules for NFL, awarding about US$40.69 million. [2] - 1997
The CBI files its charge sheet, an accusation that starts the trial. [5][6] - 2000-06
As reported by The Tribune, a CBI team returns from Turkey and France without finding the money. Prakash Yadav and Sanjeeva Rao are among those on trial. [8] - 2018-07-09
Special Judge Manoj Jain of the Tis Hazari courts, Delhi, gives judgment; eight accused are convicted. A ninth, A.E. Pinto, had died and the case against him ended in 2010. [4][5] - 2018-07-12
The court sentences the convicted people to three to six years in prison and fines. [5][6] - 2022-04
As reported by The Tribune and Free Press Journal, a Delhi court rejects a CBI request to close a second, linked urea case against Ramakrishnan, Kanwar, Sambasiva Rao and a US firm, filed 22 years after the CBI's last step. [9][10]
The documents
- [1] Lok Sabha Question No. 786, 'Urea Scam', answered 16 July 1996 Parliament, Lok Sabha (Parliament Digital Library)
- [2] Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 5292, 'Urea Scam', answered 14 May 2007 Parliament, Lok Sabha (Parliament Digital Library)
- [3] Obituary reference to Shri Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav Parliament, Lok Sabha (Parliament Digital Library)
- [4] CBI vs. C.K. Ramakrishnan (A-1) and Others, judgment of 9 July 2018 Court, Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-04, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (via Indian Kanoon)
- [5] Urea scam: CBI court imposes Rs 100 cr penalty on 2 Turkish nationals Press, Orissa Post / PTI
- [6] Urea Scam Convicts Sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment Press, LatestLY
- [7] Unlocking the urea scam (editorial) Press, Millennium Post
- [8] Nation page, 12 June 2000 (CBI team returns from Turkey, France) Press, The Tribune
- [9] Urea scam: Court rejects CBI closure report filed after 22 yrs Press, The Tribune / PTI
- [10] Urea scam case: Court rejects CBI's closure report, says agency sat on it Press, Free Press Journal
Compiled from the documents cited, 9 Oct 2026
P.V. Narasimha Rao government; National Fertilizers Limited (public sector); relatives of the Prime Minister and the Fertilisers Minister