In a significant move aimed at strengthening the standards of accountability and probity in public life, the 130th Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Thursday by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
The Bill, along with two related legislations for Union Territories—the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019—has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed scrutiny.
At its core, the Bill proposes that a Central or State Minister (including the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister) would be automatically removed from office if he or she remains under arrest and detention for 30 consecutive days in connection with a serious criminal offence punishable with five years or more of imprisonment.
What the Amendment Seeks to Do
The 130th Constitution (Amendment) Bill introduces new clauses in Article 75 (Central Ministers), Article 164 (State Ministers), and Article 239AA (Ministers for the NCT of Delhi).
It empowers the President, Governor, or Lieutenant Governor, as the case may be, to remove such a Minister once the 30 days in custody are completed.
Key provisions include:
- If a Minister is detained for 30 consecutive days, the Prime Minister or Chief Minister must advise removal by the 31st day.
- If such advice is not given, the Minister automatically ceases to hold office.
- The Minister may, however, be reappointed after release from custody.
- Parallel amendments are proposed to apply the rule to Union Territories through the Government of UT Act and the J&K Reorganization Act.
The government’s Statement of Objects and Reasons emphasizes that a Minister must remain “beyond any ray of suspicion” and always act with integrity in the service of the people.
Detention for a grave criminal charge, it argues, undermines “constitutional morality, good governance, and the trust reposed by citizens.”
Motive Behind the Amendment
The Bill is inspired by a series of recent high-profile controversies where Ministers and even Chief Ministers continued in office despite prolonged custody in cases of corruption, money laundering, and abuse of authority.
Examples cited include:
- Arvind Kejriwal, former Delhi CM, is jailed in the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam.
- V. Senthil Balaji, Tamil Nadu Minister, arrested in the Cash-for-Jobs scam, reinstated despite being in jail, drawing the ire of the Supreme Court.
- Hemant Soren, former Jharkhand CM, is detained in connection with a land scam.
- Partha Chatterjee, a former West Bengal Minister, was arrested in the recruitment scam.
While many of these leaders secured bail, the moral dilemma of holding ministerial office while facing serious criminal allegations led to sharp judicial and public criticism.
In the Senthil Balaji case, the Supreme Court even remarked that the Minister must “choose between liberty and office,” underscoring the constitutional impropriety of the situation.
Against this backdrop, the motive of the amendment is twofold:
- Prevent misuse of power by jailed Ministers, who may attempt to influence investigations or obstruct justice.
- Restore public faith in governance by ensuring that individuals under serious criminal suspicion do not continue to hold executive authority.
The Political Response
The introduction of the Bill witnessed strong opposition in the Lok Sabha. Leaders such as Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM), Manish Tewari (INC), N.K. Premchandran (RSP), K.C. Venugopal (INC), and Dharmendra Yadav (SP) questioned both the intent and the timing of the legislation.
They argued that the provision could potentially be misused for political vendetta, where arrests—especially under stringent laws like the PMLA—might be engineered to remove sitting Ministers.
Nevertheless, following a vote in the House, the Bill was allowed to be introduced, and a separate motion to refer it to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (21 Lok Sabha MPs + 10 Rajya Sabha MPs) was also adopted.
Purpose and Wider Implications
If enacted, the amendment would mark a paradigm shift in India’s governance framework, introducing a clear line of accountability for Ministers facing serious criminal proceedings. It seeks to achieve the following objectives:
- Upholding constitutional morality by ensuring that governance remains unsullied by criminal allegations.
- Strengthening public trust by demonstrating that political leaders are not above the law.
- Balancing liberty with responsibility, as the provision allows Ministers to return after acquittal or release, ensuring they are not permanently barred.
In essence, the Bill signals the government’s intent to draw a red line between political authority and criminal culpability, while also responding to public outrage over corruption and abuse of office.
#ConstitutionAmendment #ParliamentOfIndia #AmitShah #PoliticalAccountability #GoodGovernance #AntiCorruption #PublicTrust #LokSabha #IndiaPolitics #130thAmendment