What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The Pathak inquiry found that Natwar Singh and his son Jagat Singh, then a Youth Congress general secretary, introduced relatives and friends to Iraqi officials to help them obtain oil contracts. It said Natwar Singh's role in “influencing and facilitating” the contracts had worked, so he could be treated as a beneficiary of one contract, but there was “no material” that he gained money or personal benefit. The government sent the report to the Enforcement Directorate and the tax boards to act “as may appear to them warranted under the law.”

What it meant for the country

An Indian inquiry upheld part of the UN finding against Natwar Singh and rejected it against the Congress party. No court has ruled on whether any law was broken, and the ED case result is not on the public record we found.

• A sitting External Affairs Minister lost his ministry within two weeks of the report and left the Cabinet a month later. [3][4]
• India's own inquiry found that Natwar Singh used his standing to help his son's friends and relatives get Iraqi oil contracts, but found no proof that he made money. [10]
• The inquiry found no evidence against the Congress party, so the UN report's mention of the party was not upheld in India. [10]
• The ED's civil case under FEMA spent years in the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court on questions of procedure. We found no public record of a final order. [6][7][8]

Step by step

1. 2005-10-27
   The UN-appointed Independent Inquiry Committee led by Paul Volcker releases its final report. Its tables name Natwar Singh and the Congress party as non-contractual beneficiaries. [1][9]
2. 2005-11-07
   Prime Minister Manmohan Singh takes the External Affairs ministry from Natwar Singh, who stays on as Minister without Portfolio. The government orders an inquiry by former Chief Justice R.S. Pathak. [3][9]
3. 2005-12-02
   The Prime Minister tells the Lok Sabha the names are unverified and that both the Pathak inquiry and the ED are at work. [2]
4. 2005-12-07
   Natwar Singh leaves the Cabinet. He announced his resignation on 6 December, saying he did not want to be the reason Parliament was stalled. [4][11]
5. 2006-08-03
   Justice Pathak hands his report to the Prime Minister. [5]
6. 2006-08-07
   The Pathak report and the government's Action Taken Report are placed in Parliament. The government accepts the findings and sends the report to the ED and the tax boards. [5][10]
7. 2006-08
   The Congress suspends Natwar Singh from the party, as reported by The Tribune. [12]
8. 2008-03-28
   The Delhi High Court dismisses Natwar Singh's appeals against the way the ED's FEMA case was being run, and sends the parties back to the adjudicating officer. [6]
9. 2010-10-05
   The Supreme Court dismisses the appeals of Natwar Singh and Jagat Singh with costs and asks for an early decision of the FEMA complaint. [7][8]
10. 2024-08-10
    Natwar Singh dies at 93, as reported by Business Standard. [13]

The documents

1. [1] Adjournment motion on Indian entities named as non-contractual beneficiaries of the UN Oil-for-Food Programme, 28 November 2005 Parliament, Lok Sabha (Digital Library of Parliament)
2. [2] Statement by the Prime Minister regarding the Volcker Committee Report, 2 December 2005 Parliament, Lok Sabha (Digital Library of Parliament)
3. [3] Change in portfolio: K. Natwar Singh relinquishes External Affairs; Prime Minister takes charge (notice of 8 November 2005) Official, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India
4. [4] Change in portfolio: K. Natwar Singh relinquishes office of Minister without Portfolio with effect from 7 December 2005 Official, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India
5. [5] Speaker's observation on the leak of the Justice Pathak Inquiry Authority report, 11 August 2006 Parliament, Lok Sabha (Digital Library of Parliament)
6. [6] Kanwar Natwar Singh vs Director of Enforcement and Anr., 28 March 2008 Court, Delhi High Court (via Indian Kanoon)
7. [7] Kanwar Natwar Singh vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 8601 of 2010, judgment of 5 October 2010 Court, Supreme Court of India (via CaseOn)
8. [8] Kanwar Natwar Singh vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Supreme Court) Court, Supreme Court of India (via ITATOnline)
9. [9] Indian foreign minister stripped of post (7 November 2005) Press, Al Jazeera
10. [10] Pathak report indicts Natwar, gives clean chit to Congress (8 August 2006) Press, The Tribune
11. [11] Natwar resigns (7 December 2005) Press, The Tribune
12. [12] Key inputs ignored: Natwar (10 August 2006) Press, The Tribune
13. [13] Former EAM K Natwar Singh: A man who wore many hats and spoke his mind Press, Business Standard / PTI

Compiled from the documents cited, 9 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament passed the Right to Information Act, 2005, which gives citizens a statutory right to inspect records, take notes and certified copies, and obtain information in electronic form from public authorities. The Act requires every public authority to designate Central or State Public Information Officers within 100 days to deal with requests. The Central Information Commission has interpreted the Act as giving access to existing records held in material form, not answers to questions or interpretations of law, and has ordered officers to supply information within fixed times.

What it meant for the country

The Act gave citizens a statutory right to inspect and obtain copies of records held by public authorities, and the Central Information Commission has enforced this right by ordering officers to supply information within fixed times.

• Citizens gained a statutory right to information including inspection of work, documents and records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies; taking certified samples; and obtaining information in electronic form. [4]
• Every public authority is required to designate Central or State Public Information Officers within 100 days of enactment to provide information to requesters. [1]
• The Central Information Commission directed a Chief Commissioner to furnish a clear reply within 15 days, failing which penal action would be initiated, after finding "complete negligence and laxity" in dealing with RTI applications. [7]
• The Central Information Commission directed a Central Public Information Officer to provide information for 2010-2013 or affirm on affidavit that it had been weeded out or was not traceable. [8]
• The Central Information Commission held that the Act provides access to information held in material form, not answers to questions or interpretation of rules, so requesters cannot use it to demand legal interpretations. [10]

Step by step

1. 2005
   The Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) was enacted, extending to the whole of India. [3][11]
2. 2010-02-23
   The Central Information Commission in Shri Rajiv Gupta vs CIC held that the RTI Act provides access to information held in material form, not answers to questions or interpretation of rules, and upheld the Central Public Information Officer's decision. [10]
3. 2019
   Act 34 of 2019 omitted the words "except the State of Jammu and Kashmir" from section 1(2) of the Act. [3]
4. 2019-04-24
   The Central Information Commission in Rattan Deep vs Chief Commissioner Central Excise found "complete negligence and laxity" in the public authority and directed the Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Customs, Thiruvananthapuram Zone to appoint a responsible officer to furnish a clear reply within 15 days, failing which penal action would be initiated. [7]
5. 2019-11-26
   The Central Information Commission in R K Jain vs Department of Commerce directed the Central Public Information Officer to give a revised reply providing information for 2010-2013 and remaining partial information for 2014-2016, or affirm on affidavit that the information had been weeded out or was not traceable. [8]
6. 2023-01-17
   The Central Information Commission in Ashutosh Gautam vs CIC observed that the Central Public Information Officer is only a communicator of information based on records held in the office and cannot be expected to do research; the appellant had sought unrelated information in one application. [9]

The documents

1. [1] The Right to Information Act, 2005 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 22 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 1 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 2 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 2 (f) in The Right to Information Act, 2005 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 2 (h) in The Right to Information Act, 2005 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Rattan Deep vs Chief Commissioner Central Excise, ... on 24 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] R K Jain vs Department Of Commerce on 26 November, 2019 Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Ashutosh Gautam vs Central Information Commission on 17 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Shri Rajiv Gupta vs Central Information Commission (Cic) on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Rajya Sabha Secretariat Right To Information (Regulation Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Section 1579 in Rajya Sabha Secretariat Right To Information ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

The Union Cabinet Committee on Security decided on 17 February 2011 to deny the S-band orbital slot to Antrix for any commercial activities and to direct annulment of the agreement; Antrix then terminated the agreement on 25 February 2011 under the force majeure clause. The National Company Law Tribunal ordered Devas Multimedia wound up on 25 May 2021, the NCLAT upheld that on 8 September 2021, and the Supreme Court upheld the winding-up on 17 January 2022.

What it meant for the country

The record establishes the annulment of the agreement and the winding-up of Devas after judicial findings of fraud, but it does not quantify any loss, compensation or other consequence for the country.

• The S-band orbital slot was denied to Antrix for any commercial activities and the 2005 agreement was annulled and terminated, so the satellite capacity arrangement did not proceed. [4][6][1]
• Devas Multimedia was ordered to be wound up, with the Supreme Court finding on 17 January 2022 that it was a company formed for fraudulent purposes and that its activities had been conducted fraudulently and unlawfully. [3][5]

Step by step

1. 2005-01-28
   Antrix Corporation Limited and Devas Multimedia Private Limited, India, entered into the S-band satellite capacity agreement. [1][3][6]
2. 2011-02-17
   The Union Cabinet Committee on Security decided to deny the orbital slot in S-band to Antrix for any commercial activities and to direct annulment of the agreement dated 28 January 2005. [4][6]
3. 2011-02-23
   The Cabinet Committee on Security decision was communicated to Antrix by letter dated 23 February 2011. [4]
4. 2011-02-25
   Antrix issued a letter of termination of the agreement dated 28 January 2005; the termination invoked the force majeure clause, not fraud. [1]
5. 2021-05-25
   The National Company Law Tribunal ordered the winding up of Devas Multimedia Private Limited. [2][3]
6. 2021-09-08
   The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal upheld the NCLT's winding-up order. [2][3]
7. 2022-01-17
   The Supreme Court (Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Hemant Gupta), in Civil Appeal Nos. 5766 and 5906 of 2021, upheld the winding-up, finding that Devas was a company formed for fraudulent purposes and that its activities had been conducted in a fraudulent and unlawful manner. [2][3][5][7]

The documents

1. [1] Devas v. Antrix, Judgment of the Supreme Court of India, 17 Jan 2022 Web, jusmundi.com
2. [2] Devas Multimedia Private Limited v. Antrix Corporation Limited Web, siddh.ai
3. [3] PDF www.sansad.in Parliament, sansad.in
4. [4] Devas Multimedia Private Limited vs Antrix Corporation Limited on 28 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Devas Multimedia Private Limited vs Antrix Corporation Limited on 17 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Antrix Corporation Ltd. vs Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. on 30 May, 2018 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] PDF eparlib.sansad.in Parliament, eparlib.sansad.in

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

The President, acting on two reports by the Governor, issued the 23 May 2005 proclamation dissolving the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The Supreme Court, by majority, declared that proclamation unconstitutional.

What it meant for the country

The Supreme Court declared the President's 23 May 2005 dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly unconstitutional, meaning the State's Assembly was dissolved by an invalid proclamation.

• The Bihar Legislative Assembly was dissolved by a proclamation that the Supreme Court held unconstitutional, curtailing the existence of the State's Legislative Assembly. [3]

Step by step

1. 2005-03-07
   President's Rule under Article 356(1) was imposed on Bihar. [2]
2. 2005-05-23
   A Presidential proclamation dissolved the Bihar Legislative Assembly. [3]
3. 2005-10-07
   The Supreme Court, as per majority opinion, ordered that the Proclamation dated 23 May 2005 dissolving the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bihar is unconstitutional. [3]
4. 2006-01-24
   The Supreme Court judgment records that the Presidential proclamation dissolving the Bihar State Legislative Assembly was issued pursuant to two reports sent in by the Governor. [2]

The documents

1. [1] Dissolution Of Bihar Assembly - JUSTICE SACHAR Web, justicesachar.com
2. [2] Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 January, 2006 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 7 October, 2005 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026