130th Constitutional Amendment Bill (2025) Introduction

• The government has recently introduced the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill in the ongoing Monsoon Session. 

• The Bill was brought forward by the Union Home Minister in the Lok Sabha, passed through a voice vote, and has been referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee for further scrutiny. It faced strong opposition protests, with critics labeling the Bill as “unconstitutional,” “undemocratic,” and “draconian.”

What is The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill (2025)?

• Objective: Introduces a legal framework for the temporary removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and other ministers if arrested and detained for a continuous period of 30 days on charges carrying five years or more of imprisonment.
• Purpose: Aims to enhance accountability among top executive positions in India, ensuring ministers facing serious criminal charges do not remain in office during detention.
• Trigger: The Bill was prompted by recent high-profile cases in Tamil Nadu, Delhi, and Jharkhand, where incumbent ministers and chief ministers continued in office despite being jailed.
• Affected Constitutional Provisions:
  • Article 75: Covers the Prime Minister and Union Ministers.
  • Article 164: Applies to Chief Ministers and State Ministers.
  • Article 239AA: Pertains to governance of Delhi and its ministers.
• Reappointment Provision: Ministers or chief ministers can resume office after release, making the measure temporary and preventive, not a permanent bar.

Key Provisions of the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill (2025)

• Automatic Removal of Ministers Under Detention:
  • Ministers who are arrested and detained continuously for 30 days for offenses carrying five years or more imprisonment will be automatically removed from office on the 31st day.
  • Union Level: The President, either on the advice of the Prime Minister or directly, must remove the Prime Minister or Union Minister.
  • State Level: The Governor, on advice of the Chief Minister, removes State Ministers; the Governor can directly remove a Chief Minister.
  • Union Territories (UTs): Similar provisions apply to ministers in UTs, including Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir, as per amended Articles and relevant laws.
• Offices Covered:
  • Applies to the Prime Minister and Union Ministers at the central level.
  • Extends to Chief Ministers and State Ministers across states and Union Territories.
• Detention-Based, Not Conviction-Based:
  • Removal is triggered by continuous detention, not by a court conviction.
  • The Bill’s statement of objects emphasizes the need to uphold constitutional morality and public trust in governance, making this preventive measure a matter of public accountability.
• Reappointment Possibility:
  • Ministers removed under this provision can be reappointed after release, regardless of acquittal or ongoing legal proceedings, ensuring the removal is temporary and preventive, not permanent.

Why the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill Was Needed? 

• Filling a Constitutional Gap:
  • Currently, there is no explicit constitutional provision to automatically remove a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or minister under prolonged detention for serious criminal offenses.
  • By amending Articles 75, 164, and 239AA, the Bill establishes a legal framework for such removal, making the process clear and standardized.
• Curbing Criminalization of Politics:
  • The Bill aims to limit the influence of individuals facing serious criminal charges who continue to hold power while in custody.
  • This is particularly relevant in cases like the Delhi CM continuing in office while imprisoned, highlighting the need for a preventive measure to uphold the integrity of political office.
• Upholding Constitutional Morality:
  • The government emphasizes that elected representatives must act in the public interest and maintain a character “beyond any ray of suspicion.”
  • Ministers arrested and detained on serious criminal charges may undermine constitutional morality, affecting public trust in governance.
  • The Bill ensures that individuals facing serious allegations cannot continue in office while holding public trust.
• Parallels with Bureaucratic Accountability:
  • Civil servants are often suspended after short-term custody (e.g., 48 hours) to maintain institutional integrity.
  • Supporters argue that elected ministers, as public servants, should be held to a higher standard of morality, withdrawing temporarily if arrested.
• Promoting Accountability:
  • The 30-day detention period provides adequate time for ministers to seek bail and have their cases heard.
  • If release is not secured within this period, it reflects the seriousness of charges, justifying temporary removal from office until acquittal.

Problems of the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill

• Questionable Claim of Upholding Constitutional Morality:

• • • Opponents argue that the Bill’s justification of maintaining constitutional morality is misleading.
    • The Constitution already provides mechanisms, such as impeachment for the Prime Minister, making this a potentially unconstitutional bypass of existing safeguards.

• Risk of Political Targeting:

• • • Critics fear that the Bill could be misused to destabilize opposition-led state governments.
    • By leveraging central investigative agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the ruling party could detain a Chief Minister or minister for 30 days, effectively forcing their removal and creating political crises.

• Violation of ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty’:

• • • One of the most prominent criticisms is that the Bill undermines the legal principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
    • By removing ministers from office solely based on detention, without a court conviction, the Bill circumvents due process and challenges the right to a fair trial, a fundamental component of India’s legal system.

• Absence of Safeguards Against Misuse:

• • • The Bill does not specify any checks or protections to prevent misuse.
    • Decisions to arrest and detain remain fully dependent on investigative agencies, which critics argue may not always act impartially, leaving room for abuse of power.

• Arbitrary Detention Period:

• • • The 30-day detention requirement has been criticized as arbitrary, lacking a clear legal or logical rationale.
    • Many see this as aligned with standard judicial remand practices, suggesting a tactical rather than principled reform.

• Conflict with Existing Laws and Judicial Precedents:

• • The Bill contradicts current legal standards.
  • Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disqualification arises only after conviction, not arrest or detention.
  • In the Lily Thomas Case, the Supreme Court ruled that conviction carrying a sentence of two years or more leads to disqualification.
  • The Bill introduces a lower, separate threshold for ministers, creating potential legal inconsistencies.

Way Forward

• While the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill seeks to address political corruption, criminalization of politics, and uphold constitutional morality, significant concerns remain. 
• Critics highlight risks of misuse, violation of legal principles, and political targeting, especially by central agencies. To maintain credibility, the Bill should include robust safeguards and ensure it is not used to undermine opposition-led state governments.