New Delhi, August 20, 2025
In a significant move aimed at upholding constitutional morality and public trust in governance, the Indian government is set to introduce three key bills in the Lok Sabha today that would mandate the removal of the Prime Minister (PM), Chief Ministers (CMs), and ministers if they are arrested and detained for over 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. Union Home Minister Amit Shah is expected to table these bills during the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament, which is scheduled to conclude on August 21, 2025. The proposals come amid growing debates over the accountability of elected officials facing criminal allegations, particularly in cases involving corruption and other offences punishable by imprisonment of five years or more.
The Proposed Bills and Their Provisions
The centerpiece of the legislative package is the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, which seeks to amend Article 75 of the Constitution. This article currently governs the appointment and tenure of the Union Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister. The new clause, 5(A), would introduce a mechanism for automatic removal or resignation in cases of prolonged detention.
Under the bill's provisions
A minister arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days for an offence carrying a minimum punishment of five years' imprisonment must be removed from office by the President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, by the 31st day.
For the Prime Minister, the bill mandates that they "shall tender his resignation by the 31st day after being taken into custody," failing which they will cease to hold office.
Similar rules would apply to Chief Ministers and state ministers, ensuring uniformity across the federal structure.
Importantly, the bills allow for the reappointment of the affected individual once they are released from custody, provided they meet other eligibility criteria.
Complementing this are two additional bills tailored to specific administrative frameworks:
The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which amends Section 45 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, to extend these provisions to ministers in Union Territories (UTs) like Delhi and Puducherry, where governance involves a Lieutenant Governor.
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which modifies Section 54 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, to align the region's unique status with the new accountability norms.
These amendments address a gap in the current legal framework, where there is no explicit constitutional provision for removing sitting ministers solely based on arrest or detention. Presently, disqualification typically occurs only upon conviction for crimes carrying two or more years of imprisonment, as per the Representation of the People Act.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the bills emphasizes that ministers, as custodians of public trust, must maintain conduct "beyond suspicion." It argues that prolonged detention on serious charges could undermine good governance and constitutional morality, potentially eroding public confidence in democratic institutions.
Background and Context
The proposal emerges against a backdrop of high-profile controversies involving arrested politicians continuing in office. A notable trigger was the 2023 arrest of V Senthil Balaji, a minister in Tamil Nadu's DMK-led government, on money laundering charges. Despite his detention, Balaji was initially retained by Chief Minister M K Stalin, leading to a standoff with Governor R N Ravi, who attempted to dismiss him. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which granted bail but raised concerns about ministers operating from jail. Balaji was eventually removed in a cabinet reshuffle.
Other recent cases have fueled the debate, including the arrests of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren by central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED). In both instances, the Opposition accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of using investigative agencies for political vendetta, allowing detained leaders to continue influencing governance from custody.
Legal experts have long pointed out the absence of safeguards in such scenarios, noting that while the judiciary has occasionally intervened—such as in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India case (2013), which struck down protections for convicted lawmakers—the focus has been on convictions rather than arrests. The new bills aim to bridge this void by introducing a time-bound threshold for detention, drawing parallels to service rules in bureaucracy where prolonged absence leads to deemed resignation.
Political Reactions and Concerns
The Opposition has swiftly criticized the bills, viewing them as a potential tool for destabilizing non-BJP governments. Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi took to social media to lambast the proposal, stating, "Best way to destabilise opposition is to unleash biased central agencies to arrest oppo CMs and despite being unable to defeat them electorally, remove them by arbitrary arrests. And no ruling party incumbent CM ever touched!!"
Singhvi further described it as a "vicious circle," highlighting the lack of guidelines for arrests and the disproportionate targeting of opposition leaders. Other Opposition figures echoed these sentiments, arguing that without reforms to ensure the independence of agencies like the CBI and ED, the bills could be weaponized for political gain.
On the government side, sources indicate the bills are part of a broader push for ethical governance, aligning with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's anti-corruption agenda. The administration has sought relaxation of parliamentary rules—specifically Rules 19A and 19B of the Lok Sabha—to introduce the bills without the usual prior notice and circulation, citing the session's imminent end.
Following introduction, the bills are likely to be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for scrutiny, allowing for broader consultations before passage. This step underscores the government's intent to build consensus on such a sensitive constitutional change.
Implications and Future Outlook
If enacted, these bills could reshape India's political landscape by enforcing stricter accountability on executive leaders. Proponents argue it will deter corruption and ensure uninterrupted governance, while critics warn of misuse in a polarized federal setup. Legal scholars suggest the amendments might face judicial review, particularly on grounds of separation of powers and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
As Parliament convenes today, all eyes will be on the debates surrounding these proposals, which could mark a pivotal shift in how India addresses criminal allegations against its top officials. The outcome may influence not just current cases but the very dynamics of coalition politics and centre-state relations in the years ahead.
For More News Updates Follow-up www.tconews.in
