What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The West Bengal government acquired 997.11 acres in Singur in 2006 for the Tata Nano project; the Calcutta High Court upheld the acquisition in 2008. The new government enacted the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 to take back the land, but the Calcutta High Court struck down its key sections in 2012.

What it meant for the country

The documents record that 997.11 acres were acquired from farmers, many of whom protested and did not accept compensation, and the Tata Nano plant was relocated to Gujarat, so the planned employment and return of land did not happen.

• 997.11 acres of land were acquired from farmers in Singur for the Tata Nano project. [5]
• Several owners of the acquired land protested against the acquisition, did not accept compensation, and demanded return of their land, leading to agitations and security expenses by the state government. [5]
• The Tata Nano manufacturing plant was relocated to Sanand, Gujarat, after Tata Motors said it could not meet its commitment to complete manufacture and clearance of Nano cars from the Singur plant by October 2008. [5]
• The Calcutta High Court struck down Sections 2, 4(3), 5 and 6 of the 2011 Act, so the law's mechanism to return land to unwilling owners did not operate. [3]

Step by step

1. 2006-03-23
   The Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department of the Government of West Bengal sent a letter approving Tata Motors' proposal to set up a plant on 600 acres near Kharagpur to manufacture a new car with annual capacity of 2,50,000 units, targeting commercial production in 2008. [3]
2. 2006-05-30
   A Cabinet note proposed acquisition of 1053 acres for the small car project of Tata Motors at Singur, Hooghly, and 200 acres in Telipukur, Singur, totalling 1253 acres. [3]
3. 2006-06-05
   The Chief Minister approved the Cabinet decision on the proposed acquisition. [3]
4. 2006-07-06
   The Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal directed the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation, the District Magistrate and the Land and Land Revenue Department to initiate acquisition proceedings. [5]
5. 2006-07-21
   The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary, stating the land was needed for employment generation and socio-economic development by setting up the Tata Small Car Project. Section 4 notices were issued and gazetted between 13 and 24 July 2006. [3][5]
6. 2006-08-30
   The declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the official gazette, stating the land was needed for the Tata Small Car Project. [3]
7. 2006-08-31
   The Land Acquisition Collector submitted a report concluding that the acquisition was for public purpose, namely employment generation and socio-economic development by setting up the Tata Motors small car factory at Singur. [3]
8. 2006-09-25
   The Land Acquisition Collector made the award of compensation for the acquired land. [3]
9. 2006-10-04
   The Collector of Hooghly took possession of 997.11 acres of land. [5]
10. 2006-12-20
    The West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation wrote to Tata Motors asking them to take permissive possession of 950 acres of land pending finalisation of the lease deed, mentioning that 997 acres had been acquired. [5]
11. 2008-01-18
    A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the acquisition and upheld the acquisition of land as being in the interest of the public and for public purpose. [3]
12. 2011-06-20
    The Government of West Bengal enacted the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, to take over the land covered by the lease granted in favour of Tata Motors. [3]
13. 2011-09-28
    The Calcutta High Court delivered judgment in Tata Motors Limited v State of West Bengal on the constitutionality of the 2011 Act, noting that the 2006 acquisition had been upheld and that a special leave petition was pending before the Supreme Court. [5]
14. 2012-06-22
    A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed the appeals and struck down Sections 2, 4(3), 5 and 6 of the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 as unconstitutional, holding they were in direct conflict with the Land Acquisition Act. [3]
15. 2016-08-31
    The Supreme Court delivered judgment in Kedar Nath Yadav v State of West Bengal, recording that the Calcutta High Court had struck down Sections 2, 4(3), 5 and 6 of the Singur Act, 2011 as unconstitutional. [3]

The documents

1. [1] Daulat Singh Surana & Others vs First Land Acquisition Collector ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Shri Mahender Kumar vs Land Acquisition Collector on 11 May, 2006 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Kedar Nath Yadav vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 August, 2016 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] In Re: Special Land Acquisition ... vs Unknown on 4 April, 2006 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Tata Motors Limited And Another vs State Of West Bengal And Others on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] The Land Acquisition Officer vs Pappammal on 11 August, 2006 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 1 in The Singur Land Rehabilitation And Development ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Section 1 (1) in The Singur Land Rehabilitation And ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Section 3 in The Singur Land Rehabilitation And Development ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Section 6 in The Singur Land Rehabilitation And Development ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Section 9 in The Singur Land Rehabilitation And Development ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] M/S Best Sellers Retail (I)P.Ltd vs M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

The West Bengal government proposed a chemical hub and Special Economic Zone over about 10,000 acres in Nandigram. Police entered Nandigram on 14 March 2007 and opened fire on protesters, killing 14 people. The Calcutta High Court found the police firing unconstitutional and unjustified, ordered fresh trials in ten murder cases from the 2007–2009 unrest, and directed the CBI to continue its inquiry into the firing and submit a report.

What it meant for the country

Fourteen people died in police firing at Nandigram on 14 March 2007, and the Calcutta High Court found the police action wholly unconstitutional and unjustified under any provision of law.

• Fourteen people died in the police firing at Nandigram on 14 March 2007, according to the West Bengal government's report to the Ministry of Home Affairs. [13]
• The Calcutta High Court held that the police firing at Nandigram on 14 March 2007 was wholly unconstitutional and could not be justified under any provision of law, as quoted in the Lok Sabha. [16]
• The matter has remained unresolved for nearly two decades: the Calcutta High Court was still directing the CBI in 2026 to continue its inquiry into the 2007 firing and submit a report, as reported by Mumbai Mirror. [12]

Step by step

1. 2007-01-03
   An unruly mob of about 3,000 people attacked a police party in Nandigram and set fire to a police jeep; three cases were registered, as reported by the Union Home Minister to the Lok Sabha. [13]
2. 2007-01-06
   Peace meetings were held in Nandigram but the situation turned violent; four people were killed and two cases were started, as reported by the Union Home Minister. [13]
3. 2007-02-07
   Sub-Inspector Sadhu Chatterji was waylaid by a mob and killed while investigating destruction of road communication in Nandigram, as reported by the Union Home Minister. [13]
4. 2007-02-11
   The Chief Minister of West Bengal publicly committed that no land for the chemical hub and SEZ would be acquired at Nandigram if the people were against it, as reported by the Union Home Minister. [13]
5. 2007-03-14
   Police entered Nandigram through three routes and opened fire after facing resistance; 14 people died, according to the West Bengal government's report to the Ministry of Home Affairs. [13]
6. 2007-03-16
   The Union Home Minister made a statement in the Lok Sabha on the Nandigram incidents, reporting 14 deaths in police firing on 14 March 2007 and the recovery of 18 illegal firearms. [13]
7. 2007-11-21
   In a Lok Sabha discussion on the Nandigram SEZ and violence, members quoted a Calcutta High Court judgment stating: "The action of the police department to open fire at Nandigram on 14th March, 2007 was wholly unconstitutional and cannot be justified under any provision of the law." [16]
8. 2025-02-24
   The Calcutta High Court ordered a fresh trial in ten cases relating to murders during the Nandigram unrest between 2007 and 2009, as reported by The Hindu. [11]
9. 2026-09-25
   The Calcutta High Court directed the CBI to continue the inquiry into the 14 March Nandigram police firing and violence and submit a report within a month, as reported by Mumbai Mirror. [12]

The documents

1. [1] Jai Nandan Singh vs State Of Bihar Thru. Cbi on 23 April, 2014 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Avinash Jain vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 May, 2023 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] V.K. Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 May, 2026 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Abhay Markand Sakhare vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Sameer Sandhir vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 23 May, 2025 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Central Bureau Of Investigation ... vs State Of Nct Of Delhi ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Nandigram Cooperative Marketing ... vs The State Of West ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Nirmala Sahu (Samanta) vs Nandigram Braja Mohan Girls' High ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Association For Protection Of ... vs State Of West Bengal And ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Nandigram Barjamohan Girls' High ... vs Nandigram Brajamohan ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Calcutta High Court orders fresh trials in ten murder cases registered ... Press, thehindu.com
12. [12] Compensate victims of police firing: HC - mumbaimirror.com Web, mumbaimirror.com
13. [13] The Minister Of Home Affairs Made A Statement Regarding ... Court, indiankanoon.org
14. [14] Gautam Pradhan & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal on 10 March ... Court, indiankanoon.org
15. [15] (Raj Kamal Johri vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 26 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
16. [16] Discussion Regarding Proposal To Set Up Special Economic Zone ... Court, indiankanoon.org
17. [17] Cbi..... vs ......Virender Verma Etc. on 13 March, 2007 Court, indiankanoon.org
18. [18] Dinesh Dalmia vs C.B.I on 18 September, 2007 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
19. [19] Soma Chakravarty vs State Through Cbi on 10 May, 2007 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026

What was done

The Supreme Court, through a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, ruled on 11 January 2007 in I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution after 24 April 1973 are open to judicial review on fundamental rights grounds, and any such law that damages the basic structure of the Constitution can be invalidated by a court.

What it meant for the country

The ruling secured the fundamental rights of Indian citizens by ensuring that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 cannot escape judicial review when they damage the Constitution's basic structure.

• The judgment ensured that all 284 laws that had accumulated in the Ninth Schedule by 2007 remain open to judicial review if they were inserted after 24 April 1973 and violate fundamental rights, preventing the Schedule from becoming a constitutional escape route for laws that fundamentally violate the Constitution's core principles. [3][8]
• Judicial review, which the Supreme Court described as a basic feature of the Constitution and as a constituent power that cannot be abrogated, was affirmed as a protection that cannot be excluded by the Ninth Schedule. [2][4][8]
• Fundamental rights such as equality under Article 14, freedoms under Article 19, and the right to life and liberty under Article 21 were confirmed as forming the core of the basic structure, so that any law impairing those rights cannot have its invalidity justified by its location in the Ninth Schedule alone. [8]

Step by step

1. 1951
   The Constitution (First Amendment) Act added the Ninth Schedule with 13 items, all relating to land reform laws, immunizing these laws from challenge on the ground of contravention of Article 13 of the Constitution. [2][4][9]
2. 1967-02-27
   In Golak Nath's case, the Supreme Court declared that Parliament will have no power from the date of this decision (27 February 1967) to amend any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights enshrined therein. [2]
3. 1971-11-05
   The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act came into force. [1]
4. 1971-12-20
   Per the Kesavananda Bharati source, the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act came into force on April 20, 1972 and the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act came into force on June 9, 1972. [1]
5. 1972-06-09
   The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act came into force and inserted into the Ninth Schedule two Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Acts after Entry 64, namely Entry 65 (Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969) and Entry 66 (Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1971). [1][2]
6. 1973-04-24
   The Supreme Court delivered the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, propounding the basic structure doctrine: amendments to the Constitution made on or after this date by which the Ninth Schedule was amended by inclusion of various Acts and regulations were open to challenge on the ground that they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution or its basic structure. [1][2]
7. 1981
   In Waman Rao v Union of India, the court noted that the judgment needed reconsideration by a larger Bench to reconcile apparent inconsistencies and to make clear whether an Act or regulation which, or a part of which, has been found by the Court to be violative of fundamental rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31 can be included in the Ninth Schedule, or whether only a constitutional amendment amending the Ninth Schedule which damages the basic structure can be struck down. [2]
8. 1999-09-14
   An earlier I.R. Coelho decision in (1999) 7 SCC 580 referred the matters to a larger Bench, observing that preferably the matters be placed before a Bench of nine Judges. [2][9]
9. 2007-01-11
   A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal delivered its unanimous judgment in I.R. Coelho (Dead) By LRs v State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (2007) 2 SCC 1, holding that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to judicial review on fundamental rights grounds, and that a law that abrogates or abridges rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution may violate the basic structure doctrine, in which case it will have to be invalidated in exercise of the judicial review power of the Court. [2][3][6][8][9][15]

The documents

1. [1] Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 11 January, 2007 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) | LAW ZONE - The Indian Legal ... Web, lawzone.in
4. [4] I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) — Ninth Schedule Judicial ... Web, lawcodehub.com
5. [5] Judicial Review Ninth Schedule | PDF | Common Law | Judiciaries - Scribd Web, scribd.com
6. [6] I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) - LawArticle Web, lawarticle.in
7. [7] G. Ninth Schedule & Judicial Review. Concepts, Shortcuts & Solved ... Web, pareeksha.in
8. [8] PDF Judicial Review, Ninth Schedule, and The Basic Structure Doctrine: a ... Web, ijirl.com
9. [9] I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs v State of Tamil Nadu and Others - Date Of ... Web, legalservicesindia.com
10. [10] IR Coelho Case - LawBhoomi Web, lawbhoomi.com
11. [11] Ninth Schedule Case: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) Web, lawarticle.in
12. [12] IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu: The Ninth Schedule and Judicial ... Web, api.clatalogue.com
13. [13] IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu | LawStories Web, lawstories.in
14. [14] I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 | Valkya Web, valkya.org
15. [15] I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 11 January, 2007 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

Delhi Police raided the flat and filed a chargesheet on 28 April 2010. The Additional Sessions Judge-02, South East District, Saket Court convicted Shahzad Ahmed on 25 July 2013 and sentenced him on 30 July 2013. Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Yadav convicted Ariz Khan @ Junaid on 8 March 2021. The Delhi High Court on 9 February 2018 allowed the State to lead additional evidence in Shahzad Ahmed's appeal.

What it meant for the country

The encounter left a police inspector dead and led to life imprisonment for one man and conviction of another.

• Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma died of firearm injuries received in the Batla House encounter. [1]
• Shahzad Ahmed was sentenced to life imprisonment. [6]
• Ariz Khan @ Junaid was convicted. [6]
• The trial court accepted that Shahzad Ahmed fired upon police using a country-made firearm. [1]

Step by step

1. 2008-09-19
   A Delhi Police team raided Flat No.108, L-18, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. Occupants opened fire; Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma and Head Constable Balwant Singh received firearm injuries, and Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma subsequently died. [1][6]
2. 2010-02-02
   Shahzad Ahmed was arrested in FIR No.208/2008, the Batla House encounter case. [1]
3. 2010-04-28
   The charge sheet in FIR No.208/2008 was filed. [1]
4. 2011-02-04
   Charges were framed against Shahzad Ahmed. [1]
5. 2013-07-25
   The Additional Sessions Judge-02, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi convicted Shahzad Ahmed in Sessions Case No.42/2010. [1]
6. 2013-07-30
   The trial court passed the order on sentence. Shahzad Ahmed was awarded life imprisonment and a fine. [1][6]
7. 2013-11-13
   The Central Information Commission upheld the denial of RTI information about Md. Saif, who was arrested during the Batla House encounter, because the trial was pending. [2]
8. 2018-02-09
   The Delhi High Court allowed the State's application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to lead additional evidence before the trial court in Shahzad Ahmed's appeal against his conviction. [1]
9. 2021-03-08
   Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Yadav, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi convicted Ariz Khan @ Junaid @ Salim @ Anna in the Batla House encounter case. [6]

The documents

1. [1] Shahzad Ahmed vs State on 9 February, 2018 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Mr.Waliullah vs Delhi Police on 13 November, 2013 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Swatantra Bala Sahni & Anr. vs M/S. Dlf Home Developers Ltd ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Nawed Khan vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi Through ... on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] National Campaign On D.H. Rights vs Union Of India . on 15 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] St. vs . Ariz Khan @ Junaid @ Salim @ Anna on 15 March, 2021 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 5 in The Extradition Act, 1962 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Shahzad Ahmed vs State on 14 November, 2022 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Shahzad Ahmed vs Ravi Kumar on 6 May, 2025 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Shahzad Ahmed vs Ravi Kumar on 16 November, 2022 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Shahzad Ahmed vs State on 20 October, 2022 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026