The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 has stirred intense debate in India’s Parliament. Introduced amid chaotic scenes, the Bill proposes removal of ministers arrested and held in custody for 30 consecutive days for serious offences. It amends Article 75 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment and duties of the Council of Ministers. The Bill has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed scrutiny.
Provisions of the 130th Amendment Bill
The Bill mandates that any minister arrested and detained for 30 continuous days on charges of an offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more shall be removed from office. The President will remove the minister on the advice of the Chief Minister, which must be tendered by the 31st day of detention. If the Chief Minister fails to advise removal by then, the minister automatically ceases to hold office. The Bill allows for re-appointment of the minister after release from custody.
Parliamentary Response and Opposition Concerns
The Bill faced strong opposition in the Lok Sabha. Opposition parties argue it undermines the presumption of innocence by penalising ministers based on arrest rather than conviction. They fear misuse against political rivals, citing past instances of central agencies allegedly targeting opposition leaders. Critics claim it threatens federalism and democratic norms. Several leaders described it as a potential tool for political vendetta and an erosion of constitutional morality.
Role and Function of the Joint Parliamentary Committee
A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) is a special body formed by both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise complex Bills or subjects. It consists of members nominated by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman. The JPC examining this Bill will have 31 members. It will study the Bill in detail and submit recommendations. However, its findings are advisory and not binding on the government.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The Bill amends Article 75, which defines the Council of Ministers’ tenure and removal. It introduces a new ground for automatic disqualification based on arrest duration. This challenges the established legal principle of innocence until proven guilty. The Bill raises questions on separation of powers by involving the executive in removal decisions based on arrest status. The re-appointment clause leaves scope for political manoeuvring post-release.
Political and Governance Impact
If enacted, the Bill could change the political landscape by pressuring ministers under investigation. It may affect government stability in states where ministers face serious charges. The Bill aims to enhance governance by removing allegedly compromised ministers swiftly. Yet, it risks politicisation of law enforcement and executive powers. The debate reflects wider concerns about criminalisation of politics and accountability in India.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically discuss the principle of presumption of innocence in Indian criminal law and its implications for political office holders.
- Examine the role and effectiveness of Joint Parliamentary Committees in the Indian legislative process with examples.
- Analyse the impact of criminalisation of politics on democracy and governance in India. Point out possible reforms.
- Estimate the challenges to federalism posed by central agencies’ intervention in state politics and suggest measures to safeguard autonomy.
