A parliamentary panel examining bills to remove the prime minister, chief ministers and other ministers arrested on criminal charges is likely to adopt its report on the proposed legislations on July 17 and submit it in the Lok Sabha in the Monsoon session. The opposition has also alleged that the Bills are aimed at targeting and destabilising states ruled by non-NDA parties.
As the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill moves towards finalising its report, opposition MPs across parties have sharpened their attack on the legislation, calling it a tool to destabilise non-BJP governments rather than a genuine accountability measure. Times Now Digital spoke to RJD's Manoj Kumar Jha, TMC's Sagarika Ghose, and AAP's Somnath Bharti to get their reading of the Bill — and the underlying constitutional questions it raises.
Parliament of India | File Image
What the Bill Proposes
Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025, during the Monsoon Session of Parliament. The Bill seeks to provide for the removal of the Prime Minister, a Chief Minister, or any other Union or State Minister if they are arrested and held in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days in cases involving offences punishable with five years' imprisonment or more.
The provisions also extend to the Union Territory of Delhi, with two companion Bills introduced the same day to apply similar rules to Puducherry and Jammu & Kashmir.
The JPC scrutinising the Bill is reportedly set to adopt its report on July 17, and indications suggest the committee will retain the core 30-day custody clause despite objections raised by several stakeholders during consultations, while possibly adding safeguards intended to guard against the provision being used for political vendetta.
Opposition Leaders React
Notably, several opposition parties have stayed away from the committee, contending that the Bills violate the fundamental principle of law of a person being presumed innocent until proven guilty and resort to automatic sacking of the PM, CMs and ministers if they fail to get bail within a month of arrest in serious criminal matters.
The opposition has also alleged that the Bills are aimed at targeting and destabilising states ruled by non-NDA parties.
TMC MP Sagaraika Ghosh told Times Now, "The 130th amendment Bill is the Modi government’s weapon against the opposition. There are profound constitutional, democratic and federal concerns. The Bill seeks to remove a Prime Minister, Chief Minister or any Minister merely because they have remained in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days—not because they have been convicted by a court. This overturns one of the bedrock principles of criminal jurisprudence, innocent until proven guilty. Custody is only a procedural stage. It is not proof of guilt. We have seen how ED, CBI & investigative agencies are being used to target opposition leaders. If detention alone becomes sufficient to remove an elected government minister, the Modi government can engineer the removal of any elected state leader simply by ensuring prolonged custody through its puppet agencies."
"This Bill allows a democratic mandate to be overturned through a shocking misuse of the criminal process . The BJP is firing a missile at the Opposition through this bill," she said.
"The inclusion of the Prime Minister is a sly and disingenuous attempt to give this Bill an appearance of neutrality. In reality, the provision is far more likely to be deployed against Opposition leaders than against those in power at the Centre. The reference to the Prime Minister creates a false impression of equal application. Does the BJP think the public are as foolish as they are?" she questioned.
Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Jha said, "The proposed provision in the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill apparently seeks to strengthen public accountability by ensuring that individuals facing serious criminal proceedings do not continue to occupy high constitutional offices. The objective is understandable. However, the means adopted raise significant constitutional and democratic concerns that deserve careful scrutiny.
The first issue relates to the principle of natural justice. The proposed provision mandates the automatic removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers or ministers if they remain in judicial custody for thirty consecutive days in cases involving specified serious offences. Such a provision appears to conflate custody with culpability. In our constitutional framework, custody is a procedural consequence of an ongoing investigation or trial; it is not a judicial determination of guilt as the presumption of innocence remains one of the cornerstones of the rule of law. Public office certainly carries a higher ethical obligation, but constitutional rights cannot be diluted merely because one occupies elected office."
"Automatic removal without any independent judicial assessment of the merits of the case risks undermining due process and the principles of natural justice. Secondly, one cannot ignore the possibility of political misuse. In recent years, allegations of selective investigations and the strategic deployment of investigative agencies have become part of the broader political discourse. Whether these allegations are ultimately substantiated or not, constitutional design must be informed not only by ideal circumstances but also by the possibility of abuse. A provision that links removal from office solely to the duration of custody may unintentionally create incentives for politically motivated arrests or prolonged detention, particularly in a highly polarised political environment as we are in today. Constitutional safeguards must protect democratic institutions from such contingencies," he said.
"If Parliament wishes to enhance accountability without compromising democratic principles, several safeguards are essential. Automatic removal should not operate mechanically, instead, it should be subject to prompt judicial scrutiny by an independent constitutional bench or a designated judicial forum that examines whether continued custody is based on substantial legal grounds and not on mala fide considerations. The law must clearly define what constitutes a "serious offence" and exclude vague or politically contestable categories. Simultaneously, trials involving holders of constitutional office should be conducted on a fast-track basis so that neither governance nor justice suffers from prolonged uncertainty. Ultimately, constitutional democracy rests on a delicate balance between accountability and liberty. Neither can be secured by sacrificing the other and the Constitution must ensure that public office is protected from criminalisation while simultaneously guarding against the criminalisation of politics through the misuse of legal processes. A mature constitutional order demands both integrity in governance and adherence to the rule of law," he added.
Meanwhile, AAP leader Somnath Bharti said, "What I have learnt in last 12 years of my political life that political party in power abuses their agencies like ED, CBI, Income Tax, Police etc against political opposition for settling political scores or forcing them to toe their line on issues. And arresting on mere allegations, in the background of misuse of agencies of BJP, smacks of plan to destabilise non-BJP/non-NDA governments. We have the example of Arvind Kejriwal ji who was arrested and put behind bar for 6 months in a case which was not found even worth trial and hence was discharged."
For More News Updates Follow Us On www.tconews.in
