Image Source:assettype
On August 20, 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha as part of a broader legislative push that also included amendments to the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 .
Objective
The Bill aims to enhance political accountability and governance integrity by ensuring that individuals facing serious criminal allegations—including corruption or other offenses punishable by a minimum of five years’ imprisonment—cannot continue holding high office while in prolonged detention.
Key Provisions Automatic Removal After 30 Days in Custody
If a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or any Union/State/Union Territory Minister is arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days in connection with a serious offense (imprisonment of five years or more), they must resign.
For Union Ministers: The President removes them on Prime Minister’s advice. If no advice by the 31st day, the minister automatically ceases to hold office.
Similarly, in states: The Governor, acting on the Chief Minister’s advice, removes the minister—or automatic cessation occurs if advice is not given.
For the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers themselves, resignation must be tendered by the 31st day; failure results in automatic vacancy.
Opportunity for Re-appointment
The Bill expressly states that removal does not bar the individual from being reappointed after their release from custody.
Constitutional Amendments
Article 75: Targets Union Government (PM and Union Ministers).
Article 164: Targets State Governments (CMs and State Ministers).
Article 239AA: Applies the provisions to Delhi (National Capital Territory) Ministers.
Legislative Path: Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC)
Immediately after introduction, the three Bills—including this amendment—were referred to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee (21 members from Lok Sabha, 10 from Rajya Sabha) for detailed examination. The government aims to receive a report before the next Parliament session.
Parliamentary Reaction & Political Debate
The Bill sparked intense uproar in the Lok Sabha:
Opposition MPs staged dramatic protests—tearing up copies of the Bill, marching into the well, and vociferously denouncing the legislation.
Supportive Viewpoint
Proponents argue the Bill fills a constitutional gap. Current law permits ministers to continue in office post-arrest, with disqualification only after conviction. The new measure aligns political leadership with civil service norms and curbs potential misuse of political power from jail.
Strategist Prashant Kishor endorsed the Bill, stating it prevents “running a government from jail” and addresses long-overlooked constitutional vulnerabilities.
Criticisms & Constitutional Concerns
Democratic erosion: Critics—including Mamata Banerjee—called the Bill more severe than a “super-Emergency,” terming it a “Hitlerian assault” on democracy.
Separation of powers undermined: Asaduddin Owaisi warned the proposed law risks turning India into a “police state,” giving undue power to investigative agencies.
Presumption of innocence: Congress and other opposition leaders condemned the measure for treating arrest as equivalent to guilt, threatening core constitutional rights and due process.
Political targeting risk: Skeptics fear the Bill could be misused to destabilize opposition-ruled states, using politically motivated arrests for removal without trial.
Broader Implications & Outlook
On Governance & Integrity
The Bill, if enacted, could fundamentally shift how political accountability is enforced—dissuading corruption but also potentially enabling premature removals.
On Rule of Law and Rights
Critics argue arrest should remain distinct from conviction; this measure risks compromising the fundamental right to be presumed innocent.
On Federal Balance
The broad application across federal and union structures raises significant questions about central overreach and the protection of state prerogatives
On Implementation
With the Bill under review by a JPC, much depends on the committee’s report. Its recommendations will carry persuasive weight but are not binding.
[Newsroom staff written original, where key claims or facts are used, I’ve referenced the original sources (like
NDTV Profit,
The Economic Time, LiveLaw, LawBeat, NDTV, Rediff News, Deccan Herald
The Times of India, Hindustan Times
, FT, etc.) transparently.]
