Union government
Jeep scandal
A parliamentary committee reported in 1951 but its report was never made public; the government closed the matter in 1955 without action, and Menon joined the Union Cabinet in 1956.
The record
Year by year from 1947. Each entry tells you in plain words what happened, who did it, what the evidence is, and where the matter stands today. Every line links to a document: a court judgment, a law, an audit report or a charge sheet. The label on each entry is its position today. An accusation is not a conviction, and a person cleared by a court is shown as cleared.
189 documented, 71 being documented
Timeline
Scroll sideways along the timeline
1947–1964, 6 cases
Union government
A parliamentary committee reported in 1951 but its report was never made public; the government closed the matter in 1955 without action, and Menon joined the Union Cabinet in 1956.
Union government
Mudgal resigned during the debate on Nehru's expulsion motion in September 1951.
Union government
About ₹1.26 crore of LIC funds in Mundhra-group shares (estimates vary)
Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari resigned in February 1958, as did the Finance Secretary and LIC chairman; Mundhra was convicted of fraud.
Union government
₹20.25 crore government-backed loan (Lok Sabha, 1962)
Charge-sheeted by the CBI in 1967 and brought back from London in 1971, Teja was convicted; the company was merged into the Shipping Corporation of India.
Union government
Malaviya resigned after the Das report raised prima facie concerns; no prosecution followed.
Punjab
The Das Commission upheld some of the charges in June 1964, and Kairon resigned that month.
1966–1977, 4 cases
Union government
Maruti Ltd was liquidated in 1977 and the Justice A.C. Gupta Commission issued a strongly critical report; no conviction followed.
Union government
₹60 lakh withdrawn from SBI, mostly recovered
Nagarwala was convicted and died in custody in 1972; the 1978 Reddy Commission said the Prime Minister's office had obstructed the police inquiry.
Union government
Mishra was killed in January 1975; no final verdict against Ram appears in the record reviewed.
Bihar
The prosecution was withdrawn in 1981 after his own cabinet approved it; the Supreme Court upheld the withdrawal in 1982 and, by 3:2, in 1986.
1980–1984, 4 cases
Union government
About US$9.85 million notional loss (Committee on Public Undertakings, 1983)
Parliament's Committee on Public Undertakings found the purchase 'not prudent' but made no finding of wrongdoing; no prosecution followed.
Maharashtra
Antulay resigned in January 1982; he was cleared after a 12-year legal battle ending in the Supreme Court.
Madhya Pradesh
A one-judge commission and the High Court cleared Arjun Singh.
Union government
US$100,000 (alleged)
A Delhi court acquitted all three in December 2003, calling Pathak's evidence unreliable.
1984–1989, 3 cases
Union government
₹64 crore in alleged kickbacks on a ₹1,437 crore howitzer contract
The Delhi High Court found no evidence against Rajiv Gandhi in 2004; Quattrocchi was discharged in 2011 and never extradited; the Supreme Court dismissed the last appeal in August 2026.
Union government
Alleged 7% commission on a ₹465 crore contract
A 1990 CBI FIR named a former Defence Secretary and company representatives; the probes ended without any conviction.
Union government
Rao and Tewari were let go for lack of evidence in 1997; Chandraswami was acquitted in 2004, though the court held the documents were forged.
1991–1996, 9 cases
Kerala
About ₹2.3 crore alleged loss (CAG)
Proceedings against Karunakaran ended with his death in 2010; the trial of the others remains held up by petitions in the Supreme Court.
Union government
About ₹4,000 crore (widely cited estimate)
Mehta's conviction was upheld in 2003 and bank officials were sentenced as late as 2018; no minister was charged.
Karnataka
A special court acquitted them in 2003; the High Court dismissed the CBI's appeal in 2011.
Union government
A special court convicted both in 2000; the Delhi High Court acquitted them in 2002. The MPs' parliamentary immunity was overruled by the Supreme Court in 2024.
Union government
₹650 crore alleged loss (claim by former minister Kalpnath Rai)
Kalpnath Rai resigned; no prosecution established responsibility.
Union government
The Supreme Court cancelled 15 allotments and imposed ₹50 lakh in damages in 1996, then set aside the damages and the CBI direction on review in 1999.
Union government
She died in 2015 without a verdict; her former aide was sentenced to two years in 2016.
Union government
Over ₹1.16 crore in cash recovered from the minister's home (CBI)
Convicted in several cases; the Delhi High Court upheld a sentence in 2011, and he got five years in the Haryana Telecom case.
Union government
₹133 crore paid for urea never delivered (CBI)
A special CBI court convicted eight people in 2018, including the PM's relative B. Sanjeeva Rao.
2004–2009, 8 cases
Haryana
₹1,500 crore alleged loss to landowners (CBI, 2018)
The Supreme Court cancelled the land transfers in 2018; Hooda's trial continues.
Andhra Pradesh
Eleven CBI chargesheets have been filed since 2011; the trial is pending and nothing has been proven.
Union government
Natwar Singh resigned in December 2005; the Pathak inquiry found allocations were made to oblige an associate but no evidence that he received money.
Haryana
A special CBI court discharged Hooda and AJL in April 2026.
Union government
₹578 crore alleged wrongful gain to Devas (CBI, 2016)
The deal was cancelled in 2011; in 2022 the Supreme Court called it a 'product of fraud' by Devas. The criminal cases are pending.
Union government
The CBI found no evidence of kickbacks, and the Delhi High Court declined to order a further probe in 2016.
Union government
₹1.76 lakh crore presumptive loss (CAG, 2010)
The Supreme Court cancelled all 122 licences in 2012; a special CBI court acquitted all accused in 2017. The CBI's appeal is pending in the Delhi High Court.
Union government
₹1 crore in cash displayed in the Lok Sabha
A parliamentary committee found no evidence against either; in 2013 a court discharged most accused, and the money trail was never traced.
2009–2014, 11 cases
Union government
Over ₹90 crore alleged loss on the timing-scoring contract (CBI, 2011)
A court accepted the ED's money-laundering closure report in April 2025 after a related CBI case closed; Kalmadi was never convicted and died in January 2026.
Maharashtra
Chavan resigned as Chief Minister in 2010; in 2017 the Bombay High Court set aside the sanction to prosecute him.
Union government
₹1.86 lakh crore estimated windfall to private allottees (CAG, 2012)
The Supreme Court cancelled 214 allocations in 2014. Former coal secretary H.C. Gupta and others have been convicted in several cases (under appeal); other cases ended in acquittal.
Union government
₹1,63,557 crore potential earnings to the operator over 60 years (CAG — not a computed loss)
These remain audit findings; no prosecution followed.
Goa
₹35,000 crore (Justice M.B. Shah Commission estimate)
A court discharged Kamat in one case in 2025; another chargesheet against him remains.
Maharashtra
About ₹70,000 crore spent for a ~0.1% rise in irrigation (spending, not a loss estimate)
The state ACB told the High Court in 2019 that Pawar was not involved; probes into other tenders continued.
Union government
AJL properties worth over ₹2,000 crore allegedly acquired for ₹50 lakh (ED allegation)
A trial court declined to take cognisance of the ED chargesheet in December 2025; the ED's challenge is listed in the Delhi High Court for 12 October 2026.
Union government
₹14 crore alleged bribe offer (per the Army chief)
The CBI closed the procurement probe in 2014; the trial in the bribe-offer case is under way.
Haryana
Bought for ₹7.5 crore in 2008, sold to DLF for ₹58 crore (ED allegation)
A Delhi court took cognisance of the ED's money-laundering chargesheet in April 2026 and granted Vadra bail; no court has found guilt.
Union government
€556 million contract; the ED alleges a middleman received about €30 million
India cancelled the contract in 2014; Italy's top court acquitted the company executives in 2019; middleman Christian Michel was extradited in 2018 and no Indian verdict has been delivered.
Union government
₹90 lakh allegedly paid for a Railway Board post (CBI)
Bansal resigned and is a prosecution witness, not an accused; the trial of ten accused continues.
Amounts are the estimating body's own figure (CAG, CBI, a commission or a court): an estimate or allegation, not a proven loss. Each outcome is stated as of October 2026. Cases that involved several parties, such as the Jain hawala diaries, are left out.
1955
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is a law that lets the central government control the production, supply, distribution and trade of goods declared essential, to keep them available at fair prices. Parliament enacted it on 1 April 1955, replacing an earlier ordinance and state laws. It gives the government power to fix prices, set stock limits, require sale of stocks to the government, and seize and confiscate goods for breaches; in 1981 Parliament added temporary special provisions making offences non-bailable with minimum imprisonment. The Act remains in force.
Control of essential commodities
1955
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is a law that lets the central government control the production, supply, distribution and trade of goods declared essential, to keep them available at fair prices. Parliament enacted it on 1 April 1955, replacing an earlier ordinance and state laws. It gives the government power to fix prices, set stock limits, require sale of stocks to the government, and seize and confiscate goods for breaches; in 1981 Parliament added temporary special provisions making offences non-bailable with minimum imprisonment. The Act remains in force.
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is a law that lets the central government control the production, supply, distribution and trade of goods declared essential, to keep them available at fair prices. Parliament enacted it on 1 April 1955, replacing an earlier ordinance and state laws. It gives the government power to fix prices, set stock limits, require sale of stocks to the government, and seize and confiscate goods for breaches; in 1981 Parliament added temporary special provisions making offences non-bailable with minimum imprisonment. The Act remains in force.
Who did it
Control of essential commodities
The evidence
Where it stands today
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 remains in force as law. No proceedings are pending; the matter is a standing statute.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, giving the central government power to regulate or prohibit production, supply, distribution and trade in scheduled essential commodities, control prices, require sale of stocks to the government, delegate powers to states, and seize and confiscate commodities for contravention. In 1981 Parliament added temporary special provisions for hoarding and blackmarketing, making offences non-bailable with minimum three months' imprisonment and summary trial by Special Courts.
What it meant for the country
The documents establish the Act's coercive powers — price control, compulsory sale, confiscation, non-bailable offences with minimum imprisonment — but do not record their actual consequences in money, people or rights.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
1955
Benefit to the nationThe Hindu Code was a set of proposed changes to Hindu personal law on marriage, inheritance, guardianship and adoption, first discussed as one combined bill. It could not be passed as one measure, so Parliament split it into four laws: the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Those laws made a Hindu woman the full owner of property she possessed, introduced divorce and judicial separation, and set guardianship rules; a 2005 amendment later gave daughters the same right as sons in joint family property. The effort faced strong resistance from orthodox sections and was shelved in 1951 before it was passed, and it stands today as enacted law.
Hindu personal law reform
1955
Benefit to the nationThe Hindu Code was a set of proposed changes to Hindu personal law on marriage, inheritance, guardianship and adoption, first discussed as one combined bill. It could not be passed as one measure, so Parliament split it into four laws: the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Those laws made a Hindu woman the full owner of property she possessed, introduced divorce and judicial separation, and set guardianship rules; a 2005 amendment later gave daughters the same right as sons in joint family property. The effort faced strong resistance from orthodox sections and was shelved in 1951 before it was passed, and it stands today as enacted law.
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Hindu Code was a set of proposed changes to Hindu personal law on marriage, inheritance, guardianship and adoption, first discussed as one combined bill. It could not be passed as one measure, so Parliament split it into four laws: the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Those laws made a Hindu woman the full owner of property she possessed, introduced divorce and judicial separation, and set guardianship rules; a 2005 amendment later gave daughters the same right as sons in joint family property. The effort faced strong resistance from orthodox sections and was shelved in 1951 before it was passed, and it stands today as enacted law.
Who did it
Hindu personal law reform
The evidence
Where it stands today
The four statutes stand as enacted law, and the Succession Act was amended in 2005. No pending court proceeding is recorded in the sources. Law Commission proposals to further amend section 15 of the Succession Act were made in its 207th Report, but no enactment of them is shown in the sources.
What was done
Parliament first shelved a single Hindu Code Bill in 1951, then from 1955 to 1956 passed the reform as four separate statutes. In 2005 it amended the Hindu Succession Act to make a daughter a coparcener by birth with the same rights and liabilities as a son.
What it meant for the country
The record shows a net gain in rights: Hindu women became full owners of their property, and daughters acquired equal rights as sons in joint family property through the 2005 amendment.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
1955
The Imperial Bank of India was a large private bank. In 1955, Parliament passed a law that took the bank into government hands: its shares went to the Reserve Bank of India, the country's central bank, and its business went to a new government-owned bank called the State Bank of India. Shareholders were entitled to compensation under the law's First Schedule. The law stands today, and the State Bank of India continues as the institution created by it.
Imperial Bank of India and its shareholders
1955
The Imperial Bank of India was a large private bank. In 1955, Parliament passed a law that took the bank into government hands: its shares went to the Reserve Bank of India, the country's central bank, and its business went to a new government-owned bank called the State Bank of India. Shareholders were entitled to compensation under the law's First Schedule. The law stands today, and the State Bank of India continues as the institution created by it.
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
The Imperial Bank of India was a large private bank. In 1955, Parliament passed a law that took the bank into government hands: its shares went to the Reserve Bank of India, the country's central bank, and its business went to a new government-owned bank called the State Bank of India. Shareholders were entitled to compensation under the law's First Schedule. The law stands today, and the State Bank of India continues as the institution created by it.
Who did it
Imperial Bank of India and its shareholders
The evidence
Where it stands today
The State Bank of India Act, 1955 stands as enacted. No proceedings are recorded in the sources.
What was done
The Central Government, through the State Bank of India Act, 1955, took over the Imperial Bank of India. On 1 July 1955, the appointed day, the Imperial Bank's shares were transferred to the Reserve Bank of India and its undertaking to the newly constituted State Bank of India. Shareholders registered immediately before that day were entitled to compensation under the First Schedule.
What it meant for the country
The Act transferred the Imperial Bank to state ownership and required the new State Bank to open at least 400 additional branches within five years, but the sources do not record the compensation actually paid or the consequences for shareholders.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
1955
Benefit to the nationIn the 1950s, after a Press Commission examined conditions in the newspaper industry, Parliament passed a law to regulate the pay and service conditions of journalists and other newspaper employees. The law set up wage boards—with employer, employee and independent members chaired by a judge—to fix or revise wages, and it also provided for gratuity, holidays and other benefits. The rules were issued in 1957 and the law was amended in 1996, and it remains in force.
Press labour rights
1955
Benefit to the nationIn the 1950s, after a Press Commission examined conditions in the newspaper industry, Parliament passed a law to regulate the pay and service conditions of journalists and other newspaper employees. The law set up wage boards—with employer, employee and independent members chaired by a judge—to fix or revise wages, and it also provided for gratuity, holidays and other benefits. The rules were issued in 1957 and the law was amended in 1996, and it remains in force.
This is something a government or Parliament decided, or a rule a court laid down. It is not a criminal case against anyone.
What happened
In the 1950s, after a Press Commission examined conditions in the newspaper industry, Parliament passed a law to regulate the pay and service conditions of journalists and other newspaper employees. The law set up wage boards—with employer, employee and independent members chaired by a judge—to fix or revise wages, and it also provided for gratuity, holidays and other benefits. The rules were issued in 1957 and the law was amended in 1996, and it remains in force.
Who did it
Press labour rights
The evidence
Where it stands today
No court or other proceeding is recorded in these sources; the Act and rules remain in force.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in 1955. The Central Government made the rules under the Act in 1957. It constituted wage boards as and when necessary for working journalists and non-journalist employees, and Parliament amended the Act in 1996.
What it meant for the country
The law and rules secured wage-fixing and gratuity rights for press workers, which is a gain for their working conditions.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026