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₹60 lakh withdrawn from SBI, mostly recovered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The prosecution was withdrawn in 1981 after his own cabinet approved it; the Supreme Court upheld the withdrawal in 1982 and, by 3:2, in 1986.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.
1956
Before 1956, companies in India were governed by the Indian Companies Act of 1913. Parliament passed the Companies Act, 1956 on 18 January 1956 to consolidate and amend the law on how companies are formed, run, meet and report to investors. It was amended many times and was replaced by the Companies Act, 2013 on 29 August 2013.
Corporate regulation
1956
Before 1956, companies in India were governed by the Indian Companies Act of 1913. Parliament passed the Companies Act, 1956 on 18 January 1956 to consolidate and amend the law on how companies are formed, run, meet and report to investors. It was amended many times and was replaced by the Companies Act, 2013 on 29 August 2013.
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
Before 1956, companies in India were governed by the Indian Companies Act of 1913. Parliament passed the Companies Act, 1956 on 18 January 1956 to consolidate and amend the law on how companies are formed, run, meet and report to investors. It was amended many times and was replaced by the Companies Act, 2013 on 29 August 2013.
Who did it
Corporate regulation
The evidence
Where it stands today
The Companies Act, 1956 is no longer the governing statute; it was repealed on 29 August 2013 by the Companies Act, 2013. No pending proceedings under the 1956 Act are identified in the sources.
What was done
Parliament enacted the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956) on 18 January 1956, with the stated object of amending and consolidating the law relating to companies. The law was amended several times, including by Acts in 1960, 1964, 1965, 1974, 1977, 1985, 1988, 2001, 2002 and 2003, and was repealed by the Companies Act, 2013 on 29 August 2013.
What it meant for the country
The sources set out the statutory framework and its repeal, but do not record measurable consequences for companies, investors or public institutions.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
1956
Harm to the nationUnder India's Constitution the central and state governments can be sued, but in the 1950s the rules on when they had to pay for wrongful acts by officials were unclear. In 1956 the First Law Commission, chaired by M.C. Setalvad, submitted its first report, titled 'Liability of the State in Tort', recommending that the central government pass a law on the lines of the British Crown Proceedings Act 1947 to make the State liable for civil wrongs by its servants. The government did not pass that law. A 2021 Madras High Court order recorded that the 1956 recommendation had still not been enacted as law.
Liability of the state and tort law
1956
Harm to the nationUnder India's Constitution the central and state governments can be sued, but in the 1950s the rules on when they had to pay for wrongful acts by officials were unclear. In 1956 the First Law Commission, chaired by M.C. Setalvad, submitted its first report, titled 'Liability of the State in Tort', recommending that the central government pass a law on the lines of the British Crown Proceedings Act 1947 to make the State liable for civil wrongs by its servants. The government did not pass that law. A 2021 Madras High Court order recorded that the 1956 recommendation had still not been enacted as law.
The proceedings were dropped, stayed or closed. No court ever decided guilt or innocence — read below for how that happened.
What happened
Under India's Constitution the central and state governments can be sued, but in the 1950s the rules on when they had to pay for wrongful acts by officials were unclear. In 1956 the First Law Commission, chaired by M.C. Setalvad, submitted its first report, titled 'Liability of the State in Tort', recommending that the central government pass a law on the lines of the British Crown Proceedings Act 1947 to make the State liable for civil wrongs by its servants. The government did not pass that law. A 2021 Madras High Court order recorded that the 1956 recommendation had still not been enacted as law.
Who did it
Liability of the state and tort law
The evidence
Where it stands today
The recommendation in the 1956 report was never enacted into law; no bill became an Act. A writ petition filed in 2020 before the Madras High Court (W.P.(MD).No.16274 of 2020, order dated 17 August 2021) raised the question of when Parliament would bring comprehensive legislation on torts and state liability. The court suo motu impleaded the Union of India and Tamil Nadu authorities. As of that order, no such legislation had been enacted.
What was done
The First Law Commission prepared and submitted its First Report titled 'Liability of the State in Tort', recommending that the Central Government enact a law covering state liability in tort. The Central Government and Parliament did not enact the recommended legislation.
What it meant for the country
The 1956 recommendation that India enact a statutory law on state liability in tort was never implemented, leaving citizens without the remedy the Law Commission had called for.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
1956
Benefit to the nationPrivate life insurers operated life insurance business in India. In January 1956 the government first took over management of that business, and on 18 June 1956 Parliament passed the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The law created the Life Insurance Corporation of India as a state-owned monopoly, transferred all life insurance business to it, and provided compensation to the insurers whose business was taken over. The nationalisation remains in force today.
Private life insurance companies and policyholders
1956
Benefit to the nationPrivate life insurers operated life insurance business in India. In January 1956 the government first took over management of that business, and on 18 June 1956 Parliament passed the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The law created the Life Insurance Corporation of India as a state-owned monopoly, transferred all life insurance business to it, and provided compensation to the insurers whose business was taken over. The nationalisation remains in force today.
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
Private life insurers operated life insurance business in India. In January 1956 the government first took over management of that business, and on 18 June 1956 Parliament passed the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The law created the Life Insurance Corporation of India as a state-owned monopoly, transferred all life insurance business to it, and provided compensation to the insurers whose business was taken over. The nationalisation remains in force today.
Who did it
Private life insurance companies and policyholders
The evidence
Where it stands today
The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 stands in force. The nationalisation of life insurance business in India has not been reversed; the Life Insurance Corporation of India remains the state-owned life insurer under the Act.
What was done
The Government of India first took over management of private life insurance business by an ordinance in January 1956. Parliament then enacted the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, which established the Life Insurance Corporation of India, gave it all life insurance business in India as a monopoly, provided for compensation to insurers, and guaranteed all life insurance contracts issued by the Corporation through the Central Government. The Central Government provided the Corporation's capital.
What it meant for the country
The Act gave policyholders a Central Government guarantee on all life insurance contracts issued by the Corporation and made life insurance a state-backed monopoly, with the stated aim of providing security to policyholders and spreading insurance to rural areas.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026
1956
After independence, India's internal state boundaries were a mixture of old provinces and princely states, and many people wanted the map redrawn along language and regional identity. The Government of India set up the States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953, and its report led Parliament to pass the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. From 1 November 1956, the Act created new states such as Kerala, Mysore, Maharashtra and Gujarat, merged several smaller states into larger ones, and made Bombay, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands into union territories. The Act remains the legal basis of the state boundaries it created.
Reorganisation of states on linguistic lines
1956
After independence, India's internal state boundaries were a mixture of old provinces and princely states, and many people wanted the map redrawn along language and regional identity. The Government of India set up the States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953, and its report led Parliament to pass the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. From 1 November 1956, the Act created new states such as Kerala, Mysore, Maharashtra and Gujarat, merged several smaller states into larger ones, and made Bombay, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands into union territories. The Act remains the legal basis of the state boundaries it created.
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
After independence, India's internal state boundaries were a mixture of old provinces and princely states, and many people wanted the map redrawn along language and regional identity. The Government of India set up the States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953, and its report led Parliament to pass the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. From 1 November 1956, the Act created new states such as Kerala, Mysore, Maharashtra and Gujarat, merged several smaller states into larger ones, and made Bombay, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands into union territories. The Act remains the legal basis of the state boundaries it created.
Who did it
Reorganisation of states on linguistic lines
The evidence
Where it stands today
The reorganisation was completed by Parliament's enactment of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which came into force on 1 November 1956. No pending proceeding, appeal or challenge is shown in the sources.
What was done
The Government of India set up the States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953. The commission reported on 30 September proposing a reorganisation plan. Parliament then enacted the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which came into force on 1 November 1956. The Act created new states and union territories, merged several existing states, and established Zonal Councils as advisory bodies.
What it meant for the country
The sources show a wholesale redrawing of India's internal map and the creation of new advisory and judicial arrangements, but they do not record what this meant for people, money or rights.
Step by step
The documents
Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026