The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, introduced in August 2025, seeks to address the issue of criminality in Indian politics. It proposes that Ministers, Chief Ministers, and the Prime Minister must resign or face removal if held in custody for 30 consecutive days in cases punishable by five years or more imprisonment. This move aims to enhance moral integrity in governance but raises constitutional and political challenges.
Background and Purpose
The Bill responds to growing public concern about politicians with criminal charges continuing in office. Nearly half of the Members of Parliament elected in 2024 faced criminal cases. The Bill attempts to prevent leaders in custody from holding power, thereby restoring faith in political institutions.
Constitutional Provisions Invoked
The Bill amends Articles 75, 164, and 239AA, which govern the appointment and tenure of Ministers at the Union, State, and Delhi levels. These Articles state Ministers hold office at the pleasure of the President or Governor. The Bill adds clauses to allow automatic removal if custody exceeds 30 days without resignation.
Judicial Precedents and Moral Imperatives
Supreme Court rulings have emphasised constitutional morality and accountability. Cases like S.R. Bommai vs Union of India and Manoj Narula vs Union of India brought into light the need for ethical governance. The Bill draws on these principles to legislate a moral standard for Ministers.
Challenges – Presumption of Innocence and Due Process
The Bill equates detention with grounds for removal, bypassing conviction or charges. This conflicts with the presumption of innocence protected under Article 21. The Representation of People Act disqualifies lawmakers only upon conviction, not arrest. This inconsistency raises concerns about fairness.
Political Implications and Executive Discretion
Removal depends on the advice of the Prime Minister or Chief Minister. If advice is withheld, automatic removal follows. This creates scope for political bias, where allies may be shielded and rivals targeted. It risks politicising accountability rather than depoliticising governance.
Inconsistency Between Legislators and Ministers
Lawmakers face disqualification only after conviction, but Ministers face removal after detention. This asymmetry may discourage qualified individuals from ministerial roles and creates confusion in constitutional treatment of public officials.
Risk of Political Instability
The Bill allows reappointment after release from custody. This may cause cycles of resignation and reinstatement, leading to governance instability. Political actors might exploit legal delays and arrests for tactical advantage.
Recommendations for a Balanced Approach
A more nuanced model could require judicial milestones like framing of charges before removal. Independent review bodies could assess removal conditions to prevent misuse. Interim suspensions during trials could maintain governance while ensuring accountability. The Bill should focus on offences involving moral turpitude and corruption to avoid penalising minor crimes.
Significance and Future Outlook
The Bill marks a bold attempt to clean politics by legislating ethical standards. However, it must balance integrity with fairness and due process. Proper safeguards and institutional checks are essential to uphold democratic values and prevent political exclusion.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically discuss the challenges of balancing moral integrity and presumption of innocence in political governance with reference to the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025.
- Examine the role of judicial pronouncements in shaping ethical standards for political office holders in India with suitable examples.
- Analyse the impact of criminalisation of politics on democratic institutions and electoral processes in India. How can legislative reforms address these issues?
- Discuss in the light of Indian constitutional provisions, the risks and benefits of executive discretion in the removal of Ministers. What institutional mechanisms can ensure impartial accountability?
