What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The Gujarat government appointed a one-man commission of inquiry on 6 March 2002, reconstituted it on 21 May 2002 as a two-member commission headed by retired Supreme Court judge G.T. Nanavati, and expanded its terms on 20 July 2004 to include the role and conduct of the then Chief Minister, ministers, police officers and others. The Supreme Court directed the Gujarat government on 26 March 2008 to constitute a five-member Special Investigation Team headed by R.K. Raghavan, former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, to investigate nine cases.

What it meant for the country

The documents record 58 deaths in the train fire and damage to approximately 535 places of worship, with the Supreme Court noting that no witness protection law or scheme existed.

• 58 people died in the setting on fire of the Sabarmati Express near Godhra railway station on 27 February 2002, as recorded by the Gujarat High Court. [1]
• The Gujarat government admitted that approximately 535 places of worship were damaged in the violence after 27 February 2002, of which 294 had been repaired as on 31 December 2002. [5]
• The Supreme Court noted in 2009 that no law had been enacted and no scheme framed by the Union of India or the State Government for giving protection to witnesses. [6]
• The Gujarat government decided not to provide any financial aid to religious places affected or damaged in the Godhra incident or post-Godhra incident, as stated in an affidavit before the Gujarat High Court. [5]

Step by step

1. 2002-02-27
   A coach of the Sabarmati Express was set on fire near Godhra railway station, killing 58 people, and communal violence spread across Gujarat with loss of life and destruction of property. [1]
2. 2002-02-28
   The Chief Minister of Gujarat stated in the Legislative Assembly that a commission would be appointed under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to inquire into the incident. [2]
3. 2002-03-06
   The Gujarat government issued a notification appointing a one-man Commission of Inquiry consisting of Justice K.G. Shah, retired judge of the Gujarat High Court. The terms of reference were: (a) the facts, circumstances and course of events of the incidents that led to setting on fire some coaches of the Sabarmati Express on 27.02.2002 near Godhra; (b) the facts, circumstances and course of events of the subsequent incidents of violence in the State in the aftermath; and (c) the adequacy of administrative measures taken to prevent and deal with the disturbances. The commission was to submit its report within three months. [1][2][3]
4. 2002-05-21
   The commission was reconstituted as a two-member commission headed by Justice G.T. Nanavati, retired judge of the Supreme Court, as chairperson, with Justice K.G. Shah as member. [2][3]
5. 2002-06-03
   A further notification amended the terms to include violence from 27.2.2002 to 30.3.2002 and extended the time limit for the inquiry to 5.12.2002. [2]
6. 2004-07-20
   The terms of reference were expanded: the period of violence was extended to 31 May 2002, the time limit was extended to 5 December 2005, and a new clause (d) was added requiring inquiry into the role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s), police officers, other individuals and organizations in both events. [1][2][3]
7. 2004-09-04
   The Government of India, Ministry of Railways, constituted a High Level Committee consisting of Justice U.C. Banerjee, retired judge of the Supreme Court, to inquire into the Godhra incident. The Gujarat High Court later held that the Central Government could not appoint another commission to inquire into the same matter while the State commission was functioning. [2][3]
8. 2008-03-26
   The Supreme Court directed the Gujarat government to constitute a five-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by R.K. Raghavan, former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, to undertake inquiry and investigation, including further investigation, in nine cases. [6]
9. 2008-04-01
   The Gujarat government issued a notification constituting the SIT as directed by the Supreme Court. [6]
10. 2008-09-23
    The Gujarat High Court dismissed a public interest litigation by Citizens for Justice & Peace that sought to quash the first part of the report of the Commission of Inquiry (comprising retired Justice G.T. Nanavati and retired Justice Akshay Mehta) and to restrain the State from placing it before the Legislative Assembly. The Court held that no statutory provision prevents a commission from submitting its report in part. [9]
11. 2009-05-01
    The Supreme Court, in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat, issued directions including that the State of Gujarat appoint public prosecutors in each case in consultation with the SIT. The Court noted that no law had been enacted and no scheme framed by the Union of India or the State Government for giving protection to witnesses. [6]

The documents

1. [1] Amrish vs Commission - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Nilkanth Tulsidas Bhatia vs Union Of India (Uoi) And 7 Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Union Of India (Uoi) vs Nilkanth Tulsidas Bhatia And 7 Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Discussion Regarding Relief And Rehabilitation Of The Riot ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] I vs State on 8 February, 2012 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Report Of Justice U.C.Banerjee Committee On Godhra Incident ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Demanded Clarification Regarding Findings Of The Forensic ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Citizens vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] 2002 Gujarat violence - Wikipedia Web, en.wikipedia.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament inserted Section 33-B in 2002 to override court and Election Commission disclosure requirements. The Supreme Court in 2003 declared Section 33-B invalid and directed the Election Commission to collect candidates' criminal records, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications.

What it meant for the country

The decision secured voters' right to know candidates' criminal records, assets and educational qualifications by invalidating a 2002 provision that had barred such disclosure.

• The Supreme Court held that the right to know candidates' antecedents is part of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), and declared Section 33-B invalid. [10]
• The Election Commission was directed to collect from candidates details of criminal record, assets and liabilities, and educational qualification. [10][12]

Step by step

1. 2002-01
   Parliament inserted Section 33-B into the Representation of the People Act, 1951, saying no candidate had to disclose information beyond what the Act or rules required, despite any court judgment or Election Commission instruction. [10]
2. 2003-01
   The Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India declared Section 33-B invalid as violating the right to know under Article 19(1)(a), and directed the Election Commission to call for details of candidates' criminal record, assets and liabilities, and educational qualification. [10][4][12]

The documents

1. [1] The Representation Of The People (Amendment) Act, 2002 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] The Representation Of The People (Amendment) Act, 2002 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 2 in The Representation Of The People (Third ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 33B in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] People'S Union For Civil Liberties & Anr vs Union Of India on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] People'S Union For Civil Liberties & Anr vs U.O.I. & Ors on 6 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] People'S Union For Civil Liberties And ... vs Union Of India ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] People'S Union For Civil Liberties & Anr vs Union Of India ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju vs Peddireddigari Ramachandra ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Rajan Tewari vs Durgesh Kumar Pathak & Anr. on 8 July, 2024 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Up And 1 Other on 5 November, 2024 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Satish Ukey vs Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis on 1 October, 2019 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Karnataka's Stamp Investigation Team investigated and on 4 January 2003 laid a charge sheet against Telgi and others. The Supreme Court on 15 March 2004 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over further investigation. The CBI laid a charge sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and a special court convicted Telgi on 19 June 2007. A special court acquitted several accused on 14 September 2010 and the State appealed; the Supreme Court on 3 May 2017 restored a trial court conviction of Accused No.5.

What it meant for the country

The record shows a multi-state counterfeit stamp racket that caused loss to the government exchequer and involved public officials, with proceeds running to crores of rupees.

• The racket involved large-scale manufacture, sale and circulation of fake stamps and stamp papers in Delhi, Chandigarh, Chennai, Tiruchi and Hyderabad, causing loss to the government exchequer. [2][3]
• Proceeds from the sale of fake stamps amounted to crores of rupees, according to the Karnataka High Court. [1]
• Two senior Central Prison officials in Bangalore were accused of helping Telgi continue the racket from prison by providing a room and allowing mobile phone use. [3]
• Delhi Police officers were arraigned as accused for using their official position to help Telgi, including fabricating seizures and documents to implicate business rivals. [10]

Step by step

1. 2000-12-08
   Prahlad Singh was caught red-handed while supplying counterfeit government stamps of foreign bills, a case that became part of the fake stamp paper scam, as recorded by the Delhi High Court. [10]
2. 2003-01-04
   An officer of Karnataka's Stamp Investigation Team (STAMP IT) laid a charge sheet against Abdul Kareem Telgi and others in Crime No.1100 of 2002; the court took cognizance and registered C.C.No.37 of 2003. [4]
3. 2003-08-04
   The Karnataka High Court ordered Telgi to be given to police custody for 10 days from 06.08.2003 to 15.08.2003, with directions against harassment and for medical examination. [1]
4. 2004-03-15
   The Supreme Court, by order in Writ Petition (Civil) No.522 of 2003, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over further investigation of Crime No.1100 of 2002. [4]
5. 2004-07-09
   In the Lok Sabha, a member said a former Assistant Commissioner of Police had deposed before a Bangalore magistrate about the multi-state stamp scam and named a former Chief Minister, a sitting Minister and a central Minister, as reported in the debate. [6]
6. 2005-02-01
   The CBI filed a charge sheet against Narender Singh and Prahlad Singh in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Special Cases, Patiala House, New Delhi; the charge sheet was dated 31 January 2005. [10]
7. 2007-06-19
   A special court in Bengaluru convicted Telgi in Spl.C.C.No.213 of 2004 for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act read with criminal conspiracy. [4]
8. 2008-01-17
   The Delhi High Court dismissed Delhi Police Inspector Puran Singh's petition seeking further investigation, saying the prayer was without merit. [10]
9. 2010-09-14
   A special judge in Bengaluru acquitted accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 to 11, 18, 26, 31, 32 and 33 in S.C.Nos.643 of 2003, 352 of 2004 and 353 of 2004; the State filed an appeal against the acquittal. [3]
10. 2017-05-03
    The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order and confirmed the trial court's conviction of Accused No.5, saying he was the main man who ran two organisations. [5]

The documents

1. [1] State By Stamp Investigation Team vs Abdul Kareem Telgi ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Sri Abdul Kareem Telgi vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] State Of Karnataka vs Abdul Kareem Telgi @ Kareem Lala on 3 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Sri Abdul Kareem Telgi S/O Late Ladsab ... vs The State Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] State Of Karnataka Now C.B.I. vs Abdul Kareem Telgi on 3 May ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Reported Deposition Made Before The Additional Chief ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Bhushan Ishwar Mahajan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] The State Of Maharashtra vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Discussion Regarding Recent Stamp Paper Scam, Raised By Shri ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Puran Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 January, 2008 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Sanguine Holding Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Abdul Karim Telgi @ Lala @ Karim Lala vs State on 17 ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

The Government of Uttar Pradesh initiated the Taj Heritage Corridor Project. The Supreme Court directed the CBI to lodge an FIR against officials involved; the Supreme Court later quashed that FIR.

What it meant for the country

The documents record that the Supreme Court halted the project and later quashed the FIR, but they do not establish monetary loss, casualties, or other measurable consequences.

• The Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to halt construction on the Taj Heritage Corridor project (as reported by Grokipedia). [4]
• The Supreme Court quashed the FIR on 6 July 2012, ending the criminal proceeding recorded in the sources. [4]

Step by step

1. 1996-12-30
   The Supreme Court issued extensive directions to safeguard the Taj Mahal and the surrounding Taj Trapezium Zone. [2]
2. 2003
   Application No. 376 of 2003 informed the Supreme Court that the Government of Uttar Pradesh had commenced a 'Heritage Corridor' project involving diverting the river. [2]
3. 2003
   As reported by Grokipedia, the Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to halt construction on the Taj Heritage Corridor project, citing violations of prior court orders on pollution control and unauthorized work along the Yamuna River. [4]
4. 2003-09-18
   The Supreme Court directed the CBI to lodge an FIR against officials involved in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project due to serious irregularities and illegalities. [1][6]
5. 2006-11-27
   The Supreme Court order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India noticed Vineet Narain and Union of India v. ... and directed that no opinions/recommendations including those of the Attorney General for India and CVC be forwarded to the court/Special Judge concerned. [5]
6. 2007-10-10
   The Supreme Court judgment noted the amicus curiae's application to set aside the Governor of Uttar Pradesh's order refusing sanction to prosecute and reiterated the direction that no opinions/recommendations including those of the Attorney General and CVC be forwarded to the court/Special Judge concerned. [5]
7. 2012-07-06
   As reported by Grokipedia, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR, ruling that the CBI lacked specific material evidence tying Mayawati's personal assets to the project and had improperly expanded the scope of the original court-mandated investigation without prior sanction from the state governor. [4]

The documents

1. [1] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. - Advanced Analysis ... Web, juris-codex.com
2. [2] M.C Mehta v. Union Of India And Others | Supreme Court Of ... Court, casemine.com
3. [3] Mayawati vs Union of India - 2012 Supreme (SC) 438 Web, supremetoday.ai
4. [4] Taj corridor case — Grokipedia Web, grokipedia.com
5. [5] PDF JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4 CASE NO.: PETITIONER Court, api.sci.gov.in
6. [6] M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Ors. On Behalf of Monitoring ... Court, advocatekhoj.com

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026