[Answered] Critically analyze The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, implications for democratic norms, political accountability, and the rule of law in a charged political climate.

Introduction

The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeking automatic removal of arrested ministers, raises profound concerns over constitutional morality, democratic accountability, and misuse of criminal law in India’s increasingly polarized political climate.

Intent of the Bill – Accountability or Political Tool?

1.            The Bill inserts Articles 75(5A) and 164(4A) mandating removal of ministers, including PMs and CMs, if they spend 30 days in custody.
2. Ostensibly, it addresses the long-standing problem of criminalisation of politics, highlighted by the Vohra Committee (1993), the 244th Law Commission Report (2014), and SC rulings like Lily Thomas v Union of India (2013).
3. However, unlike Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, which ties disqualification to conviction, this Bill shifts the threshold dangerously to mere arrest.

Democratic Norms and Constitutional Principles at Stake

1. Presumption of Innocence: The Bill undermines Article 21 by equating arrest with guilt, contravening Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) and the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
2. Separation of Powers: Articles 75 and 164 already vest removal powers in the President/Governor on PM/CM’s advice. Automatic disqualification bypasses parliamentary and judicial checks, concentrating power in investigating agencies.
3. Due Process: SC in Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India (2006) stressed that executive action must not subvert constitutional morality. Here, removal without trial or judicial scrutiny denies procedural fairness.

Political Climate and Risks of Misuse

1. Data reveals ED registered 193 cases against politicians in the last decade, 71% in the last 5 years, but secured only two convictions (Rajya Sabha, March 2025).
2. Between 2014–2022, 95% of high-profile ED cases targeted Opposition leaders (Indian Express analysis). SC and CJI Gavai have repeatedly flagged “overreach” of agencies.
3. Given the long pre-trial detentions under PMLA and UAPA (with stringent bail conditions), the Bill effectively hands ruling regimes a constitutional weapon to topple Opposition governments.

Comparative and Institutional Context

1. Globally, democracies distinguish between conviction and mere arrest. In the UK, ministers resign only when facing serious charges proven in court.
2. In India, existing safeguards — like SC’s Lily Thomas ruling (disqualification on conviction) — already check misuse. Strengthening investigative autonomy of CBI/ED and faster judicial trials would be more effective than this amendment.

Balancing Political Accountability and Liberty

Genuine decriminalization of politics requires:

1. Independent appointments to CBI/ED through bipartisan committees (as suggested by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission).
2. Making bail the rule except for heinous crimes, in line with SC’s Satender Kumar Antil v CBI (2022).
3. Electoral reforms — barring candidates with serious charges framed by a court, as proposed by the Law Commission, not on mere arrest.

Conclusion

While seeking to curb political corruption, the 130th Amendment risks institutionalising vendetta politics. Democratic accountability must rest on conviction and due process, not arbitrary arrests that erode constitutional morality and liberty.