What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The Ministry of Finance, by a notification dated 8 November 2016, declared existing ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes invalid as money from midnight that night. Parliament later passed the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Bill, 2017 after rejecting a resolution to disapprove the related ordinance. The Supreme Court upheld the decision by a 4–1 majority on 2 January 2023.

What it meant for the country

On the record before us, the Reserve Bank of India estimated that 86% of the demonetised currency had flowed back by August 2017, but the later 99.3% return figure and the fuller economic effect cited by the government are not in the sources supplied.

• By 2 August 2017, the Reserve Bank of India estimated that 86% of the demonetised amount had flowed back into the banking system, indicating most of the withdrawn money had returned. [12]

Step by step

1. 1978-01-16
   The High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978 is deemed to have come into force; it covered ₹1,000, ₹5,000 and ₹10,000 notes issued by the Reserve Bank of India. [4]
2. 2016-11-08
   The Central Government, by a Ministry of Finance notification dated 8 November 2016 (F. 10/3/2016-Cy.I), declared that the bank notes of the existing series of denominations of ₹500 and ₹1,000 ceased to be legal tender. The decision was announced in the late evening of 8 November 2016 and took effect from 00:00 hours on 9 November 2016. [6][9][10]
3. 2016-12-30
   The window for depositing the demonetised notes closed on 30 December 2016; possessing the specified bank notes was not an offence until 31 December 2016. [12][3][10]
4. 2017
   The Specified Bank Notes (Deposit of Confiscated Notes) Rules, 2017 were notified, allowing specified bank notes confiscated or seized by law enforcement agencies on or before 30 December 2016 to be deposited or exchanged subject to conditions including noting of serial numbers. [3]
5. 2017
   In the Sixteenth Lok Sabha, the Statutory Resolution disapproving the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016 was negatived, and the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Bill, 2017 was passed. [5]
6. 2017-08-02
   In the Lok Sabha, it was stated that as per the Reserve Bank of India's estimate, the demonetisation involved a flow-back of 86% of the demonetised amount. [12]
7. 2023-01-02
   The Supreme Court pronounced judgment in Vivek Narayan Sharma v Union of India. Justice B.R. Gavai pronounced the Reportable judgment of the Bench; Justice B.V. Nagarathna pronounced a separate Reportable judgment differing on the reasoning and conclusions, a 4–1 split. The Bench answered the Reference and directed the Registry to place the matters before the Chief Justice of India for listing before appropriate Benches. [1]

The documents

1. [1] Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union Of India on 2 January, 2023 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] vs ‐ on 3 January, 2019 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] The Specified Bank Notes (Deposit of Confiscated Notes) Rules ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] The High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Combined Discussion On Statutory Resolution Regarding ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] M.Seeni Ahamed vs The Union Of India on 10 November, 2016 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Sritherumalleshwara Co-Operative ... vs Income-Tax Officer ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Mohammed Haroon Rasheed vs Union Of India on 11 November, 2016 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] M/S Tamilnadu State Marketing ... vs Acit, Corporate Circle-3 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] S. Balaji Mech-Tech Private Limited, ... vs Ito Ward 22 (1 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Regarding Assessment Of Demonetized Notes Following ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

Kuldeep Singh Sengar, then a sitting BJP MLA from Bangermau, was convicted by the District and Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 16 December 2019 and sentenced on 20 December 2019 for the rape of a minor under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court had on 1 August 2019 ordered the CBI investigation and shifted the trial from Lucknow to Delhi, directing the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹25 lakh interim compensation and ordering CRPF protection for the survivor and her family. On 23 December 2025, the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar's life sentence pending his appeal; the CBI then challenged that order in the Supreme Court.

What it meant for the country

A minor was raped, her father died in police custody after being beaten, and the survivor and her lawyer were severely injured in a road crash; the courts had to order CRPF protection and ₹25 lakh in interim compensation.

• The survivor's father was beaten before being taken into custody and died in police custody, in a connected case among the transferred cases. [8]
• The survivor and her lawyer were severely injured in a road crash on 28 July 2019 near Rae Bareli, which was also among the transferred cases. [12]
• The Supreme Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹25 lakh as interim compensation to the survivor. [8][12]
• The Supreme Court directed CRPF protection for the survivor, her mother, four siblings, her uncle Mahesh Singh and his family members, and her lawyer, because of apprehensions about their safety and security. [1][4]
• The Delhi High Court noted the Union of India had moved an application to withdraw the survivor's security; the security continued pending orders. [2][4]

Step by step

1. 2017-06-04
   A minor was raped in Village Makhi, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh; Kuldeep Singh Sengar, then a sitting BJP MLA, was among the accused. [1][4]
2. 2017-06-11
   As reported by The Hindu, a second gang rape of the survivor took place within a week of the first. [8]
3. 2019-07-28
   As reported, a road crash near Rae Bareli left the Unnao rape survivor and her lawyer severely injured; this case was among those later transferred. [12]
4. 2019-08-01
   The Supreme Court transferred four cases from a CBI court in Lucknow to the court of Dharmesh Sharma, District Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi; ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹25 lakh interim compensation to the survivor; and directed CRPF protection for the survivor, her mother, four siblings, her uncle Mahesh Singh and his family, and her lawyer. [1][4][8][12]
5. 2019-12-16
   The District and Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi delivered the conviction judgment against Sengar (as reported by infipark). [5]
6. 2019-12-20
   The trial court delivered its sentencing order (as reported by infipark). [5]
7. 2024-09-06
   The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Commission for Women to pay rent and incidental expenses for the survivor's accommodation, the rent to be reimbursed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, and said security to the victims shall continue till further orders. [2]
8. 2024-12-05
   The Delhi High Court ordered Sengar to be admitted to AIIMS, New Delhi for a comprehensive medical review and treatment, and released him on interim bail with conditions including that he not leave Delhi. [4][1]
9. 2024-12-20
   The Delhi High Court partly allowed Sengar's application and released him on interim bail, on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety, for admission to AIIMS, New Delhi for medical treatment, and directed he live at B-5/123 Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and not leave Delhi without the court's permission. [1]
10. 2025-12-23
    The Delhi High Court suspended Sengar's life sentence during the pendency of his appeal, primarily holding that a sitting MLA does not qualify as a public servant under Section 21 IPC for the enhanced POCSO offence (as reported by infipark, LawBeat, legallypresent.in and supremetoday.ai). [5][6][9][15]
11. 2025-12-29
    The CBI filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's 23 December 2025 order, describing it as contrary to law and perverse (as reported by The Indian Express). [11][14]
12. 2026-03-09
    The Supreme Court heard the CBI's Special Leave Petition against the Delhi High Court order suspending Sengar's sentence. [13]

The documents

1. [1] Kuldeep Singh Sengar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 20 December ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Kuldeep Singh Sengar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 6 September ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Kuldeep Singh Sengar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 8 October, 2025 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Kuldeep Singh Sengar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 December, 2024 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Kuldeep Singh Sengar Case: A Landmark Judgment on Sexual Assault ... Web, infipark.com
6. [6] Delhi High Court Suspends Sentence of Kuldeep Singh Sengar in Unnao ... Web, lawbeat.in
7. [7] Unnao rape case explained: Kuldeep Sengar's bail order, the backlash ... Press, economictimes.indiatimes.com
8. [8] Supreme Court orders transfer of Unnao cases to Delhi CBI court Press, thehindu.com
9. [9] Suspension of Kuldeep Singh Sengar's Sentence in Unnao Rape Case: Why ... Web, legallypresent.in
10. [10] Unnao custodial death case: Delhi HC begins hearing appeals against ... Web, aninews.in
11. [11] Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Kuldeep Singh Sengar on 29 December ... Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] SC Transfers Unnao Cases To Court Of Delhi District Judge Dharmesh ... Web, lawstreet.co
13. [13] Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Kuldeep Singh Sengar on 9 March, 2026 Court, indiankanoon.org
14. [14] Sengar order perverse: CBI challenges HC finding, moves SC in 2017 ... Press, indianexpress.com
15. [15] High Court of Delhi Suspends Sentence of Former MLA Kuldeep Singh ... Web, supremetoday.ai

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026

What was done

The Union government enacted the Finance Act 2017, which amended the Reserve Bank of India Act, the Representation of the People Act, the Income-tax Act and the Companies Act to allow anonymous electoral bond donations, and the Ministry of Finance notified the Electoral Bond Scheme on 2 January 2018. The Supreme Court struck down the scheme and the amendments on 15 February 2024.

What it meant for the country

The Supreme Court found that the electoral bond scheme and related amendments hid information about political party funding, violating citizens' right to information, and struck them down.

• The Finance Act 2017 amendments removed the requirement for political parties to disclose donations received through electoral bonds, reducing transparency of political funding. [1][11]
• The Supreme Court held that this non-disclosure of information regarding funding of political parties was violative of the right to information of citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. [4][1]
• The Election Commission had warned in 2017 that the amendments would have a serious impact on transparency of political finance and were a retrograde step. [1]

Step by step

1. 2017-01-02
   The Reserve Bank of India wrote to the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Finance objecting that there was no special need for introducing a new bearer bond in the form of electoral bonds. [1]
2. 2017-01-30
   The Finance Ministry responded to the RBI that the fear that electoral bonds might be used as currency was unfounded because there was a time limit for redeeming the bonds. [1]
3. 2017-05-26
   The Election Commission of India wrote to the Ministry of Law and Justice that the Finance Act 2017 amendments would have a serious impact on transparency of political finance and that exempting electoral bond donations from reporting was a retrograde step. [1]
4. 2017-08-04
   The Deputy Governor of the RBI stated that India could consider issuing electoral bonds on a transitional basis through the RBI under section 31(1) of the RBI Act, with bonds issued only at RBI, Mumbai. [1]
5. 2018-01-02
   The Ministry of Finance notified the Electoral Bond Scheme 2018 under section 31(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. [10][1]
6. 2019-04-12
   The Supreme Court passed an interim order directing the Election Commission of India to collect details of contributions received through electoral bonds. [4][6]
7. 2021-03-26
   The Supreme Court refused to stay the Electoral Bond Scheme or stop further sale of bonds, noting the safeguards and the interim order of 12 April 2019. [6]
8. 2024-02-15
   The Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bond Scheme and the Finance Act 2017 amendments unconstitutional on the ground that non-disclosure of information regarding funding of political parties violates the right to information of citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and directed SBI to submit purchase and redemption details from 12 April 2019 to 15 February 2024. [1][4]
9. 2024-03-11
   The Supreme Court, on SBI's application, placed SBI on notice that the Court would be inclined to proceed against it for willful disobedience if SBI did not comply with the disclosure directions by the timelines indicated. [4]
10. 2024-03-15
    The Supreme Court issued notice to SBI after it was submitted that SBI had not disclosed the alphanumeric numbers of the electoral bonds, and directed a senior SBI officer responsible for storage of bond details to be present on 18 March 2024. [2]
11. 2024-03-18
    The Supreme Court directed the Chairman and Managing Director of SBI to file an affidavit by 5 pm on 21 March 2024 stating that SBI had disclosed all details of electoral bonds in its possession and custody and that no details had been withheld, and directed the Election Commission to upload the details forthwith on receipt. [3]

The documents

1. [1] Association For Democratics Reforms vs Union Of India on 15 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Association Of Democratice Remorms And ... vs Union Of India ... Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Association Of Democratice Remorms vs Union Of India on 18 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] State Bank Of India vs Association For Democratics Reforms on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Association For Democratic Reforms vs Union Of India Cabinet ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Common Cause vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2024 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] Section 135 in The Finance Act, 2017 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Venkatesh Nayak vs State Bank Of India on 24 November, 2021 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] The Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Section 137 in The Finance Act, 2017 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Section 11 in The Finance Act, 2017 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The Jammu and Kashmir Crime Branch investigated the Kathua rape-murder and filed a charge-sheet on 9 April 2018. The Supreme Court transferred the trial to the District and Sessions Judge, Pathankot on 7 May 2018. The trial court convicted six of the seven accused and acquitted one on 10 June 2019. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, and later the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, held Shubam Sangra to be a juvenile on the date of the offence.

What it meant for the country

The record shows the abduction, gang rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl in Kathua, and the case led to a relocation of the trial to Pathankot and convictions of six accused.

• An eight-year-old girl lost her life in a rape-murder in Kathua, as recorded in the Supreme Court's account of the case. [1]
• The Supreme Court moved the trial from Kathua to Pathankot and ordered an in-camera, fast-track proceeding, after concerns about fair trial in Kathua. [2]
• Six of the seven accused were convicted and one was acquitted by the trial court on 10 June 2019. [1]

Step by step

1. 2018-01
   An eight-year-old girl was abducted, gang-raped and murdered in Rasana village near Kathua in Jammu and Kashmir, according to the Supreme Court's later account. [1]
2. 2018-01-22
   Investigation of the case was transferred to the Crime Branch, Jammu; records note the case was formally handed over to the Crime Branch on 27 January 2018. [1][2]
3. 2018-03-27
   The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua held Shubam Sangra to be a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence. [1]
4. 2018-04-09
   The Crime Branch filed the charge-sheet in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua. [2]
5. 2018-05-07
   The Supreme Court transferred the case from the District and Sessions Judge, Kathua to the District and Sessions Judge, Pathankot, and directed a fast-track, day-to-day, in-camera trial under the Ranbir Penal Code. [2]
6. 2019-06-10
   The trial court convicted six of the seven accused and acquitted one accused in the Kathua rape-murder case. [1]
7. 2019-10-11
   The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu rejected the State's Criminal Revision Application and affirmed the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order holding Shubam Sangra to be a juvenile on the date of the offence. [1]
8. 2022-11-16
   The Supreme Court delivered a judgment in the State's appeal against the High Court order on the juvenile determination of Shubam Sangra. [1]

The documents

1. [1] The State Of Jammu And Kashmir (Now U.T. ... vs Shubam Sangra on 16 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Mohd. Akhtar vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 7 May, 2018 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] In Re: Alleged Rape And Murder Incident ... vs Item No.1 Court No.1 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] State vs Jasbir Singh @ Billa And Kuljeet Singh @ ... on 16 November, 1979 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 383 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Shri Krishan vs Jasoda Devi And Ors on 27 September, 2017 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 12 Oct 2026