One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment Bill, 2025

What is the Bill about?

• The Bill aims to remove the Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or any Minister (central/state/UT governments) if they are held in custody for 30 consecutive days for a serious criminal offense (punishable with 5+ years imprisonment).

• It proposes significant changes to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Indian Constitution.

• Extends similar provisions to the Union Territories of Delhi and Puducherry, and to Jammu & Kashmir via respective amendment bills.

• All three bills are referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed review.

Key Provisions of the Bill

Arguments In Favor of the Bill

• Constitutional Morality & Ethics:
  The Supreme Court in Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) emphasized the importance of morality in governance and recommended avoiding Ministers with serious criminal charges.

• Public Trust & Good Governance:
  The Bill seeks to prevent "governance from jail" and boost public confidence by removing Ministers facing serious criminal allegations during custody.

• Bridging Legal Gaps:
  Existing laws (Representation of People Act) disqualify only upon conviction, leaving a gap during arrest/detention. This Bill addresses that gap.

• Fairness with Civil Servants:
  Ordinary government employees are suspended after 48 hours in custody; Ministers should be held to similar standards.

• Political Decriminalization:
  Encourages political parties to distance themselves from candidates involved in serious crimes.

Arguments Against the Bill

• Potential Political Misuse:
  Central agencies (like ED, CBI) could misuse arrest powers to target political opponents, destabilizing governments without electoral processes.

• Presumption of Innocence:
  Removal triggered by detention, not conviction, undermines the fundamental right of "innocent until proven guilty." Lily Thomas v. Union of India held disqualification should occur only after conviction.

• Inconsistency in Treatment:
  Legislators (MPs/MLAs) are disqualified only after conviction, but Ministers under this Bill can be removed during detention — causing a paradox.

• "Revolving Door" Problem:
  Allowing reappointment after release could lead to tactical resignations and reinstatements, causing political instability.

• Executive Discretion & Politicization:
  PM or CM’s advice to remove Ministers could be politically motivated, possibly protecting allies or targeting rivals.

• Lack of Safeguards:
  No compensation or protection if arrests are malicious; laws like UAPA and PMLA have low conviction rates but high arrests, raising misuse concerns.

Existing Legal Framework and Judgments

• Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951:
  Section 8(3) disqualifies elected representatives only after conviction with imprisonment of 2+ years.

• Lily Thomas (2013):
  SC struck down provisions allowing convicted members to avoid disqualification by filing appeals.

• Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014):
  Court said no bar on appointing Ministers with criminal charges but advised caution.

• Public Interest Litigation (2018):
  Courts held that new disqualification grounds must come from Parliament, urging political parties to act responsibly.

• Election Commission Recommendations (2016):
  Proposed barring candidates charged with serious offenses from contesting elections.

Way Forward / Recommendations

• Interim Suspension:
  Instead of outright removal, consider suspending ministerial functions during custody/trial, allowing governance without compromising accountability.

• Strengthen Political Parties:
  Political parties should self-regulate and refuse tickets to candidates with serious criminal backgrounds, focusing on integrity over electability.

• Safeguards Against Misuse:
  Legal protections or compensation for malicious arrests and misuse of detention laws should be introduced.