We give people a voice. Independent public-record reporting on India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
FaujiLeaks
SearchSubmit a tip
Menu

Evidence brief

Three landmark corruption cases in India: what the record shows

Bofors, 2G spectrum and coal block cases in India: what CAG reports and court judgments show, who was acquitted, and the legal status as of October 2026.

Published 18 October 2026, Records

This briefing summarises public court records and official reports. Allegations are not findings. Where a court has acquitted a person or quashed charges, that outcome is stated. Last reviewed 18 October 2026.

Three cases have shaped how India talks about corruption in public contracts: one in defence procurement and two in the allocation of natural resources. Each produced official reports, years of investigation and major court rulings. Each also shows how far an allegation, an audit estimate and a criminal verdict can differ. This briefing sets out what the record shows and where each case stands today.

A note on terms. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is India's constitutional auditor. A presumptive loss is an auditor's estimate of revenue that might have been earned under a different method; it is not a finding that money was stolen. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the federal investigating agency, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigates money laundering. For how to read audit figures, see how to read a government audit report.

The Bofors howitzer contract (1986–2026)

In 1986 the Government of India bought 155 mm field howitzers for the Army from the Swedish firm AB Bofors. In 1987 Swedish Radio reported that commissions had been paid to secure the contract. The allegation was that public officials and intermediaries received payments in breach of rules against agents in defence deals. It mattered because it raised questions about integrity in military procurement at the highest level, and it remained in the courts for nearly four decades.

What the record shows

Status today

Acquitted or closed. No person has been convicted in the Bofors case. Charges against the Hinduja brothers and AB Bofors were quashed in 2004 and 2005, and Ottavio Quattrocchi was discharged in 2011. Several other accused died while proceedings were pending. In August 2026 the Supreme Court dismissed the last pending appeal, filed by a private advocate against the 2005 judgment, bringing the court proceedings to an end. In May 2019 the CBI had also withdrawn its application to investigate further.

Why it matters

Bofors is widely cited in debates on intermediaries in arms deals. India blacklisted the company after the allegations, a ban later lifted, and the guns were used by the Army in the 1999 Kargil conflict. Today's Defence Acquisition Procedure requires a pre-contract integrity pact, a written anti-bribery undertaking, for procurements above Rs 20 crore. The case also shows the limits of prosecutions that depend on documents and witnesses abroad.

The 2G spectrum allocation (2008–2026)

In 2008 the Department of Telecommunications issued new mobile licences with second-generation (2G) spectrum at prices set in 2001, largely on a first-come, first-served basis rather than by auction. The CAG later questioned the method and the value obtained. The CBI alleged a criminal conspiracy in the allocation. It mattered because spectrum is a scarce public resource and the case reshaped how India sells it.

What the record shows

Status today

Acquitted or closed at trial: every accused person and company was acquitted in December 2017, and that verdict stands. Appeal pending: the CBI's appeal, admitted in March 2024, and the ED's appeal are before the Delhi High Court. We found no report of a final High Court judgment as of October 2026. The 2012 cancellation of licences is a separate Court finding about the allocation process, not a criminal verdict against any person.

Why it matters

The case moved India to auctioning telecom spectrum and prompted the Supreme Court's 2012 opinion on how natural resources may be allocated. It also started a long public debate about how auditors calculate notional losses, which is why careful reporting says "the CAG estimated" rather than stating a loss as fact.

The coal block allocation (1993–2026)

From 1993 the Ministry of Coal allotted coal blocks to companies for their own use, such as power and steel plants, through a screening committee and government decisions rather than competitive bidding. The CAG found that delay in introducing bidding benefited private allottees. The CBI later registered dozens of cases alleging that some companies obtained blocks by misrepresentation and that some officials acted improperly. It mattered because coal is central to India's energy supply and the blocks held very large reserves.

What the record shows

Status today

Acquitted or closed in a number of cases: trial courts have acquitted or discharged several accused, including senior former coal ministry officials in some cases. For example, in June 2025 a special court acquitted three former ministry officials in one case while convicting the company and its director. Court finding: convictions have been recorded in other cases against companies, executives and some public servants. Appeal pending: the Delhi High Court has admitted appeals in several convictions and in some has suspended sentences while appeals are heard. Charges filed: remaining cases are still at trial. Because outcomes differ case by case, each person's position should be checked against the specific judgment.

Why it matters

The 2014 rulings led to the 2015 Act and a shift to auctions for coal mines. The case is a reference point for how audit findings, public interest litigation and criminal trials interact, and for how long criminal cases can take.

Panama Papers and Pandora Papers

These were not prosecutions but leaks of offshore financial records, published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) with partners worldwide. Holding an offshore company or trust is not in itself illegal in India if it is lawfully declared.

We do not name individuals from these leaks here. Being named in a leak is not a finding of wrongdoing, and individual outcomes are often not public.

Using these records

Court judgments, CAG reports and parliamentary answers are public. To follow similar cases, see our guides on filing an RTI request in India, searching public tenders and checking company ownership, and our India page. Our editorial standards explain how we report allegations. If you hold information about procurement in a civil or military body, read source safety dos and don'ts first, never use a work device or work network to contact a journalist, and use our secure tip form. Anyone named who believes this summary is inaccurate can use our right of response.

This is general information, not legal advice.

Frequently asked questions

Was anyone convicted in the Bofors case?

No. Charges against the Hinduja brothers and AB Bofors were quashed by the Delhi High Court in 2004 and 2005, Ottavio Quattrocchi was discharged in 2011, and the Supreme Court dismissed the last pending appeal in August 2026.

Did the 2G case end in acquittals?

Yes. A special CBI court acquitted all accused people and companies on 21 December 2017. The CBI and ED have appealed, and the Delhi High Court admitted the CBI's appeal in March 2024; the appeals were pending as of October 2026.

Was the CAG's Rs 1.76 lakh crore 2G figure an actual loss?

No court has adopted it as a measured loss. The CAG called it a presumptive loss based on benchmarks such as 3G auction prices, and the government disputed the method.

What did the Supreme Court decide on coal blocks?

In August 2014 it held that coal block allocations made since 1993 were arbitrary and illegal, and in September 2014 it cancelled 214 of 218 allocations, leading to auctions under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015.

Is having an account named in the Panama or Pandora Papers illegal?

Not in itself. Offshore holdings can be lawful if properly declared. Indian tax and enforcement agencies examined the names through a multi-agency group, and outcomes vary case by case.

Sources