What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

Parliament enacted the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and later enacted the 2015 Act, which repealed the 2000 Act. The Supreme Court applied the 2000 Act retrospectively to protect a person who was a juvenile at the time of a 1981 offence.

What it meant for the country

The documents record a right secured: the Supreme Court applied the 2000 Act retrospectively to free a man convicted for a 1981 murder.

• The Supreme Court's retrospective application of the 2000 Act led to the release of a man convicted for a 1981 murder, as reported in Hansraj v State of Uttar Pradesh. [8]
• The 2000 Act was repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, ending its legal force. [18]

Step by step

1. 2000-12-30
   Parliament enacted the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as Act No. 56 of 2000. [3][20]
2. 2006-08-22
   The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 came into effect, inserting Section 7A and amending Sections 1 and 4 of the 2000 Act. [11][21][22]
3. 2007-10
   The Government of India notified the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 under the 2000 Act as amended in 2006. [13]
4. 2009-05-08
   The Supreme Court in Hansraj v State of Uttar Pradesh reversed the High Court acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. [1][8]
5. 2014
   A Parliamentary Standing Committee report on the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014 recorded that the Bill sought to repeal and re-enact the 2000 Act. [6]
6. 2024
   In Vinod Katara v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court directed the Sessions Court, Agra to examine the claim that the applicant was a juvenile on the date of the offence. [1]

The documents

1. [1] A law that transcends time: SC's retrospective application of the ... Research, scobserver.in
2. [2] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 | Bare Acts Court, advocatekhoj.com
3. [3] PDF The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Act No ... Official, mahapolice.gov.in
4. [4] PDF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000 (Act ... Official, ncpcr.gov.in
5. [5] PDF Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 Official, tshc.gov.in
6. [6] PDF Parliament Parliament of India Research, prsindia.org
7. [7] Juvenile Justice Act: Supreme Court on Retrospective Use Web, ksandk.com
8. [8] Supreme Court Applies Juvenile Justice Act Retrospectively to Free Man ... Web, legallypresent.in
9. [9] Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 Web, jhalsa.org
10. [10] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Web, en.wikipedia.org
11. [11] Section 7A in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Section 4 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org
13. [13] PDF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (Handlooms and Textiles) DEPARTMENT Official, cag.gov.in
14. [14] PDF Microsoft Word - 7-Chapter II Official, cag.gov.in
15. [15] Section 41 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ... Court, indiankanoon.org
16. [16] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Court, indiankanoon.org
17. [17] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Court, indiankanoon.org
18. [18] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act ... Official, pib.gov.in
19. [19] PDF The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2022 Parliament, sansad.in
20. [20] India Code: JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000 Official, indiacode.nic.in
21. [21] Section 1 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org
22. [22] Section 4 (1) in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ... Court, indiankanoon.org
23. [23] Meghraj Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 14 July, 2021 Court, indiankanoon.org
24. [24] Section 68 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ... Court, indiankanoon.org
25. [25] Section 1 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

Parliament enacted the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 and the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. Under those Acts, Chhattisgarh came into being on 1 November 2000 and Jharkhand on 15 November 2000. The Bihar Act's Eighth Schedule set pension apportionment between Bihar and Jharkhand by employee ratio.

What it meant for the country

The sources establish that India's federal structure was altered by the creation of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand and that the Bihar Act used a different pension apportionment formula from the MP and UP reorganisations, but they do not record further consequences for people, money or rights.

• India's federal structure was altered by the addition of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 and the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. [2]
• The Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 set pension liability apportionment between Bihar and Jharkhand by employee ratio, while the 2000 Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh reorganisations used population ratio, creating different financial arrangements for successor states. [3]

Step by step

1. 2000-11-01
   Chhattisgarh came into being with the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, with effect from 1 November 2000. [2]
2. 2000-11-15
   Jharkhand came into being with the enactment of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, with effect from 15 November 2000. [2]

The documents

1. [1] PDF The Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 - India Code Official, indiacode.nic.in
2. [2] English Releases - Press Information Bureau Official, pib.gov.in
3. [3] PDF THE BIHAR REORGANISATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2012 - Digital Sansad Parliament, sansad.in

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution submitted its report on 31 March 2002 recommending constitutional and governance reforms, including omission of the split exemption in the anti-defection law, disqualifying defectors from office, and a 10% ceiling on ministers. Parliament enacted the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003, which capped the Union Council of Ministers at 15% of the Lok Sabha's strength and disqualified defectors from ministerial and remunerative political posts. The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to consider the Commission's fundamental duties recommendations.

What it meant for the country

The Commission's recommendations led to a constitutional amendment that capped the size of councils of ministers and barred defectors from ministerial posts, a governance reform.

• The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 capped the Union Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, at 15% of the Lok Sabha's strength and disqualified defectors from ministerial and remunerative political posts, changing the structure of government. [3]

Step by step

1. 2002-03-31
   The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution submitted its report. It recommended omission of paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule (the exemption for splits), debarring defectors from ministerial or remunerative political posts for the remaining term or until the next election, and a ceiling on ministers at 10% of the total strength of the popular House. [3]
2. 2003
   Parliament enacted the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003. It inserted Article 75(1A) capping the Union Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, at 15% of the total number of members of the House of the People, and disqualified defectors from being appointed as ministers. Similar provisions were made for states, and defectors were disqualified from holding any remunerative political post. [3]

The documents

1. [1] Hon'Ble Shri Ranganath Mishra vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Report No.255 On Electoral Reforms - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] THE CONSTITUTION (NINETY-FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Article 338 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Union Of India & Anr vs National Commission For Scheduled ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] 217Th Report On Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage - Another ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Report No.259 On "Early Childhood Development And Legal ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] 214Th Report On Proposal For Reconsideration Of Judges Case I ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Pdf - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] B.V. Narayana Reddy And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which entitled a divorced Muslim woman to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid within the iddat period by her former husband. The Supreme Court, in Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001), upheld the Act's constitutional validity and ruled that a Muslim husband must make a reasonable and fair provision for the future of his divorced wife, including maintenance, made within the iddat period but not confined to it.

What it meant for the country

The Supreme Court's 2001 interpretation secured the right of divorced Muslim women to a reasonable and fair provision for their future from their former husband, not limited to the iddat period.

• Divorced Muslim women gained the right to a reasonable and fair provision for their future from their former husband, extending beyond the iddat period, as held by the Supreme Court in Danial Latifi (2001). [6][11][12]
• The 1986 Act's Section 4 provides a safety net: if a divorced woman cannot maintain herself after the iddat period and has not remarried, a Magistrate may order her relatives who would inherit her property, or the State Wakf Board, to pay her maintenance. [7]

Step by step

1. 1986
   Parliament enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Section 3(1)(a) entitles a divorced woman to 'a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband.' Section 3(1)(b) provides for maintenance of children for two years from their dates of birth; Section 3(1)(c) provides for mahr or dower; Section 3(1)(d) provides for properties given to her. Section 4 allows a Magistrate to order her relatives or the State Wakf Board to pay maintenance if she cannot maintain herself after iddat. [1][7]
2. 1986
   The Central Government made the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Rules, 1986 under section 6 of the Act. The Rules provide for service of summons, recording of evidence, and include a form by which a divorced woman and her former husband may declare they wish to be governed by sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 instead of the Act. [8]
3. 2001-09-28
   The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Danial Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740; AIR 2001 SC 3958. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act and held that a Muslim husband is liable to make a reasonable and fair provision for the future of his divorced wife, including maintenance, and such provision must be made within the iddat period but is not confined to the iddat period. [10][11][12]
4. 2024
   As reported, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023) against her husband, and that the 1986 Act operates in addition to, not in derogation of, that secular maintenance right. [12][2]

The documents

1. [1] Section 3 in The Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Muslim Divorcee Maintenance: Exploring the Legal Conundrum ... Web, bhattandjoshiassociates.com
3. [3] Danial Latifi Case Analysis on Maintenance Rights Web, scribd.com
4. [4] Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740 Web, drishtijudiciary.com
5. [5] Understanding the Essence of the Muslim Women (Protection of ... Web, legalserviceindia.com
6. [6] Danial Latifi V. Union Of India (2001) – Interpretation Of ... Web, lawfullegal.in
7. [7] The Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] The Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Rules, 1986 Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Section 2 in The Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Danial Latifi And Another v. Union Of India - CaseMine Court, casemine.com
11. [11] Danial Latifi & Anr. v. Union of India - LawArticle Web, lawarticle.in
12. [12] Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740 | Valkya Web, valkya.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026