Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill – Provisions & Criticisms- Explained Pointwise

The government has recently introduced Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill in the ongoing Monsoon Session. The Bill was introduced by the Union Home Minister in the Lok Sabha. It was passed by a voice vote & has been sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee for further scrutiny. It faced strong protests from the opposition, which has called the Bill “unconstitutional,” “undemocratic,” and a “draconian” move.

Introduction:

• The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill (2025) proposes to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and other ministers from office if they are arrested and detained for a continuous period of 30 days on charges that carry a prison term of five years or more.
• The Bill is a significant proposal which is aimed at enhancing the accountability among top executive positions in India.
• Introduction of the Bill is actually triggered by recent high-profile cases where incumbent CMs and Ministers (e.g. in Tamil Nadu, Delhi, and Jharkhand) were jailed but continued in office.
• The Bill amends the following provisions:
  • Article 75 – Relates to the Prime Minister and Union Ministers.
  • Article 164 – Covers Chief Ministers and State Ministers.
  • Article 239AA – Deals with the governance of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and its ministers.
• The Bill allows for the reappointment of ministers or chief ministers after release, ensuring it is not a permanent bar but a temporary preventive measure.

What are some of the important provisions of the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill?

1. Automatic Removal of Ministers Facing Serious Criminal Charges: The Bill states that if a minister is arrested and held in continuous detention for 30 days for an offense that carries a prison sentence of five years or more, they will automatically be removed from their position on the 31st day:
   • The President (on advice of PM or directly) must remove a Union Minister or the Prime Minister.
   • The Governor (on advice of CM) must remove State Ministers.
   • The Governor (directly) must remove a Chief Minister.
   • For Union Territories (including Delhi and J&K), similar removal provisions will apply under amended Articles and relevant laws.
2. Targeted Offices: The Bill applies to the Prime Minister and Union ministers at the central level, as well as Chief Ministers and state ministers in states and Union Territories.
3. Focus on Detention, Not Conviction: A core and highly debated aspect is that the minister’s removal would be based on the duration of their detention, NOT on a final conviction in a court of law. The Bill’s “statement of objects and reasons” claims this is necessary to uphold constitutional morality and public trust in governance.
4. Provision for Reappointment: The Bill does not prevent a minister who has been removed from being reappointed to the same office once they are released from custody, regardless of whether they have been acquitted.

What was the need for introducing such a legal framework?

1. Upholding Constitutional Morality: The government’s “statement of objects and reasons” for the Bill argues that elected representatives are expected to act in the public interest and maintain a character “beyond any ray of suspicion.” It states that a minister who is arrested and detained on serious criminal charges may “thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality.” Therefore, the Bill is needed to ensure that such individuals do not continue to hold a position of public trust.
2. Addressing a Constitutional Gap: According to the government, there is currently no explicit constitutional provision for the automatic removal of a minister—including the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister—who is arrested and detained for a prolonged period on serious criminal charges. The Bill aims to create this legal framework by amending Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution.
3. Curbing Criminalization of Politics: By setting a clear standard for removal from office, the government argues that the Bill is a step towards reducing the criminalization of politics. It is meant to ensure that leaders facing grave allegations of criminal offenses cannot continue to govern from jail for e.g. Delhi CM continued as the CM from prison. 
4. Drawing a Parallel with Bureaucrats: Proponents have drawn a parallel to the service rules for government employees. They argue that if a civil servant is suspended after being in custody for a short period (e.g. 48 hours), a higher standard of morality should be expected of elected public servants. They contend that ministers are also “public servants” and must withdraw from office if arrested, even if for a temporary period.
5. Prompting Accountability: Supporters believe that a 30-day period of detention is sufficient time for an arrested minister to apply for bail and have their case heard. If a minister is unable to secure release, it is a sign that the charges are serious enough to warrant their removal from public office, at least until they are acquitted.

What are the criticisms of the provisions introduced by the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill?

1. Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The most significant criticism is that the Bill fundamentally violates the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, a cornerstone of India’s legal system and a core component of the right to a fair trial. The Bill punishes a minister by removing them from office based solely on their detention, without a court having established their guilt. Critics argue this subverts the due process of law.
2. Constitutional Morality: Opponents argue that the Bill’s claim of upholding “constitutional morality” is an excuse to bypass established legal principles. They contend that the Constitution already has provisions for the impeachment of a Prime Minister and that the Bill introduces a new, unconstitutional mechanism.
3. Targeting Political Opponents: A key fear is that the Bill could be weaponized by the ruling party at the Centre to destabilize opposition-ruled State governments. By using central investigative agencies, such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to arrest and detain a Chief Minister or a state minister for 30 days, the Centre could force their removal from office, leading to a political crisis.
4. Lack of Safeguards: The Bill has been criticized for not providing any safeguards against its potential misuse. The decision to arrest and detain is entirely in the hands of the investigating agency, which critics argue is not a neutral body.
5. Conflict with Existing Laws & Judgements: The Bill creates a direct conflict with existing legal precedents. For example, under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a person is disqualified from holding office only upon a conviction for a serious crime, not upon arrest or detention. In the Lily Thomas Case, SC held that a conviction which carries a sentence of 2 years or more would result in the disqualification of a legislator from holding public office & contesting elections from the date of conviction. Thus, the Bill’s provisions would create a separate, lower standard for ministers.
6. Arbitrary Detention Period: The choice of “30 days” is seen as arbitrary. Critics argue there is no legal or logical basis for this specific duration, and it appears to be a number chosen to align with the standard period for judicial remand. This makes the law seem like a tactical, rather than a principled, reform.

Conclusion:
Even though the Bill aims to address some of the very important issues like political corruption & criminalization of politics as well as seeks to enforce the constitutional morality, however, still some of the issues raised by the opposition leaders & critics should also be addressed. The Bill should not become an excuse to further weaponize the central agencies by the Central govt to target the opposition ruled states.