Editorial: The 130th Amendment Bill — Lofty idea, dangerous intent
The timeline makes this amendment less a safeguard and more a devious political strategy
On the face of it, the constitutional amendment Bill, seeking automatic removal of a central or State minister jailed for a month on serious offences or corruption charges, appears lofty and morally correct. However, given the political intentions driving it, the proposed legislation is not just flawed and bad in law but is fraught with dangerous implications for democracy. It is a matter of relief that the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, and two related statutory amendments to reflect the proposed changes for Union Territories have been referred to a joint committee of Parliament for review, following vociferous protests from the entire opposition.
If the Bill, proposed by Home Minister Amit Shah, becomes a law, it is bound to be misused for targeting the Chief Ministers and Ministers of opposition-ruled States. For instance, if a popular Chief Minister heading into an election is arrested on trumped-up charges a month before polling, her or his party could become rudderless, impacting the election outcome. The precision of the timeline makes this amendment less a safeguard and more a devious political strategy. A mere lock-up could become the preferred means of dislodging governments.
The cure offered by the legislation for political corruption and immorality may prove worse than the disease. The Statement of Objects and Reasons insists that Ministers must be models of probity and incapable of thwarting governance while in custody. For a common citizen frustrated with the criminalisation of politics, this prescription sounds attractive. But, this could become a political weapon to finish the careers of opposition leaders.
At its core, the amendment mandates that any Union or State Minister, including the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister, who is arrested and remains in custody for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a potential sentence of five years or more, must resign or automatically vacate office. The justification offered is that it would uphold constitutional morality, preserve public trust, and ensure that those in high office remain beyond reproach. It must be pointed out that in a polarised society, the line between prosecution and persecution is very thin. Mere arrest and sending to jail are not proof of crime. This amendment risks giving sweeping powers to the Executive to make arrests.
The Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, which deal with the central Ministers and Ministers in States and Union Territories. Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the legislators are disqualified from contesting elections or continuing in office upon conviction for certain criminal offences, and being sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years. The proposed amendment deals with the removal of a Minister after having spent 30 days in custody. This constitutional amendment, however, needs a two-thirds majority in the House to become a law, a requirement that the NDA cannot fulfil.
