What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

Parliament enacted the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003, which omitted paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule and inserted clause (1A) in article 164. The Law Minister wrote to Chief Ministers to bring state councils into conformity within six months.

What it meant for the country

The amendment tightened anti-defection law by deleting the split provision and imposed a ceiling on council size, as the Act's statement of objects records.

• The deletion of paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule removed the provision that allowed bulk defections or splits, tightening the anti-defection law. [1][2][7]
• The ceiling on council size addressed abnormally large councils; states were given six months to bring their councils into conformity with the new clause (1A) in article 164. [3][4]

Step by step

1. 2003
   The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 was enacted, omitting paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule and providing for a ceiling on the size of councils of ministers. [1][2][7]
2. 2004-01-07
   A notification dated 7 January 2004 was issued; Law Minister Arun Jaitley wrote to all Chief Ministers, enclosing the Act and the notification, asking them to bring the size of the Council of Ministers into conformity with the newly inserted clause (1A) in article 164 within six months if the total number of Ministers exceeded the limit. [4]

The documents

1. [1] The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 Web, tndba.in
2. [2] Section 4 in THE CONSTITUTION (NINETY-FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 3 in THE CONSTITUTION (NINETY-FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] English Releases - Press Information Bureau Official, pib.gov.in
5. [5] Section 1 in THE CONSTITUTION (NINETY-FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] PDF THE CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2021 By - Digital Sansad Parliament, sansad.in
7. [7] Judicial Review of India's Tenth Schedule | PDF | Supreme Court Of The ... Web, scribd.com

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

Parliament enacted the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, giving statutory status to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Vigilance Commissioner, as directed by the Supreme Court and recommended by the Law Commission.

What it meant for the country

The Act gave the Central Vigilance Commission statutory backing and legal protection, strengthening oversight of central government public servants as directed by the Supreme Court.

• The Supreme Court directed that the Central Vigilance Commission be given statutory status, which the Act implemented. [10][13]
• The Act constituted the Commission as a statutory body with a Central Vigilance Commissioner and up to two Vigilance Commissioners, giving it legal authority to inquire into allegations against central government public servants and employees of government corporations, companies, societies and local authorities. [2][6]
• The Act protects the Commission, its Commissioner and staff from any suit or legal proceeding for actions taken in good faith under the Act. [4]
• The Act vests administration of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (the CBI) in a Director appointed by the Central Government. [5]

Step by step

1. 1997-12-18
   The Supreme Court in Vineet Narain v Union of India directed that the Central Vigilance Commission be given statutory status. [10][13]
2. 1998-08-13
   The Law Commission of India submitted its 161st report recommending statutory status for the Central Vigilance Commission and annexed a draft Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998. [13]
3. 1998-12-07
   The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998 was introduced in the Lok Sabha; the motion for leave to introduce was adopted. [14]
4. 1999-04-04
   The Central Vigilance Commission was constituted under the Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1999 and a Government of India Resolution dated 4 April 1999. [2][10]
5. 2000-05-10
   The Rajya Sabha adopted a motion appointing members to the Joint Committee of the Houses on the Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1999. [11]
6. 2003-02-21
   The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1999 was discussed and passed in Parliament. [10]

The documents

1. [1] The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 3 in The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 1 in The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 15 in The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 26 (3) in The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 8 in The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 3 in The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Section 1 in The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Section 2 in The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Discussion On The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1999 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Regarding Appointment Of Members Of The Rajya Sabha To The ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
13. [13] Central Vigilance Commission And Allied Bodies. - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
14. [14] Introduction Of The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
15. [15] Section 3 (1) in The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
16. [16] Shri Sudhir Chopra vs Central Vigilance Commission (Cvc) on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
17. [17] Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy vs M. Devaki on 21 February, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
18. [18] Vineet Narain & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 January, 1996 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament passed the Constitution (Eighty-ninth Amendment) Act, 2003, which amended Article 338 and inserted Article 338A, creating the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and leaving the National Commission for Scheduled Castes under Article 338.

What it meant for the country

The amendment gave Scheduled Tribes a dedicated constitutional commission and a consultation right on major policy matters affecting them.

• Scheduled Tribes gained a separate constitutional commission, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, with constitutional status. [2][4]
• The Union and every State Government are required to consult the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes on all major policy matters affecting Scheduled Tribes. [5]
• The National Commission for Scheduled Castes continued under Article 338, now restricted to Scheduled Castes. [6][7]

Step by step

1. 1987
   A Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was set up by a government resolution. [6]
2. 1990
   The Constitution (Sixty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1990 created the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Article 338. [6][8]
3. 1992-03-12
   The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was constituted, replacing the 1987 commission. [6]
4. 2003
   The Constitution (Eighty-ninth Amendment) Act, 2003 bifurcated the combined commission into the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes; Article 338 was amended and Article 338A was inserted. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

The documents

1. [1] Amendments in the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 Official, pib.gov.in
2. [2] The Constitution (Eighty-ninth Amendment) Act, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] PDF Committee on The Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Parliament, sansad.in
4. [4] National Commission for Scheduled Tribes | Government of India Official, ncst.gov.in
5. [5] Article 338A in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] PDF 5739LS - PRS Legislative Research Research, prsindia.org
7. [7] Mumbai Port Authority vs National Commission For Scheduled ... on 28 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Article 338 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] (i) ORDER No. i OF THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION Official, eci.gov.in

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

Gujarat police shot dead Ishrat Jahan and three others on 15 June 2004. A Gujarat High Court-appointed SIT found the encounter was staged, and the CBI formally accused seven police officers, saying the encounter was fake and a joint operation between Gujarat Police and the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau.

What it meant for the country

Four people were killed in an encounter that a Gujarat High Court-appointed SIT and the CBI found was staged, and seven police officers were formally accused.

• Four people were killed: Ishrat Jahan, Javed Shaikh, Amjadali Akbarali Rana and Zeeshan Johar. [6][7]
• A Gujarat High Court-appointed SIT found the encounter was staged. [6][9]
• The CBI charge-sheet said the encounter was fake, a joint operation between Gujarat Police and the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, and that the four were given tranquillizers before being shot. [7]
• Seven police officers were formally accused. [7][8]
• In 2019, a special CBI court discharged former police officers D.G. Vanzara and N.K. Amin, as reported by The Wire and Indiatimes. [6][9]

Step by step

1. 2004-06-15
   Ishrat Jahan, a 19-year-old woman from Mumbra, and Javed Shaikh, Amjadali Akbarali Rana and Zeeshan Johar were killed by Gujarat police on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. [6][7]
2. 2004-07
   Shamima Kauser, Ishrat Jahan's mother, filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court seeking a CBI inquiry into the encounter. [9]
3. 2006-06
   The Ahmedabad city crime branch submitted a report to the Gujarat High Court claiming the encounter was genuine. [9]
4. 2009-08
   The Gujarat High Court ordered a three-member Special Investigation Team to probe the encounter and determine whether it was genuine. [9]
5. 2011-12-01
   The Gujarat High Court passed a judgment and order in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.15981 of 2010, No.9832 of 2010 with Special Criminal Application No.1850 of 2009, pursuant to which the FIR in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case was lodged. [11]
6. 2013-04-05
   Narendra K. Amin was produced before the CBI court at Ahmedabad. [11]
7. 2013-06-28
   The Gujarat High Court ordered that Shamima Kauser be joined as a respondent in the main application, noting the FIR was lodged pursuant to directions issued by a Division Bench in her petition. [2]
8. 2013-07-03
   The CBI filed its charge-sheet/police report in the case. [11]
9. 2013-07-09
   The Gujarat High Court delivered a judgment in Narendra K. Amin vs CBI, noting the charge-sheet was filed on 03.07.2013 and the FIR was lodged pursuant to the High Court's order dated 01.12.2011. [11]
10. 2016-03-02
    The Supreme Court listed a public interest litigation that sought closure of cases against the police officers in the Ishrat Jahan case. [9]
11. 2019-05-02
    A special CBI court discharged former police officers D.G. Vanzara and N.K. Amin, as reported by The Wire and Indiatimes. [6][9]

The documents

1. [1] Ishrat Jahan vs State on 31 July, 2020 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Shamima Kauser (Mother Of Deceased ... vs Central Bureau Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Ishrat Jahan And Ors vs The Union Of India And Ors on 22 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Regarding Recent Developments In Ishrat Jahan Encounter Case ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Smt. Ishrat Jahan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 10 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Ishrat Jahan Encounter Case: A Timeline of Events - The Wire Press, m.thewire.in
7. [7] CBI chargesheet says Ishrat Jahan, 3 others murdered in ... Press, indiatoday.in
8. [8] Ishrat encounter 'fake': CBI; 7 police officers chargesheeted Press, economictimes.indiatimes.com
9. [9] 17 Years On, Three Accused Cops Discharged By CBI Court: Here ... Web, indiatimes.com
10. [10] Ishrat jahan order (encounter) | PDF - SlideShare Web, slideshare.net
11. [11] Narendra K Amin vs Central Bureau Of on 9 July, 2013 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Smt. Ishrat Jahan vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 7 ... on 28 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
13. [13] Israt Jahan Tabassum vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
14. [14] Ishrat Jahan vs Vth A.D.J. And Ors. on 24 September, 2004 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026