Constitution 130th Amendment Bill
The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, has recently stirred intense debate in the Indian Parliament. Amid uproar in the Lok Sabha, the Bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed examination. The Bill proposes changes to Article 75 of the Constitution, focusing on the disqualification of ministers detained for serious offences. This article explains the Bill’s provisions, parliamentary response, and the role of the Joint Committee.
Provisions of the 130th Amendment Bill
The Bill mandates that any minister arrested and detained for thirty consecutive days on charges of serious offences punishable by five years or more imprisonment shall lose their ministerial post. The President will remove such a minister on the advice of the Chief Minister by the thirty-first day of detention. If the Chief Minister fails to advise removal, the minister will automatically cease to hold office. However, the Bill allows the minister to be reappointed after release from custody.
Amendment to Article 75
Article 75 currently outlines the appointment and responsibilities of the Council of Ministers. This amendment adds a clause to ensure ministers detained for serious criminal allegations cannot hold office beyond thirty days. The Bill aims to uphold constitutional morality and good governance by preventing detained ministers from exercising power.
Opposition Concerns
The Bill faced strong opposition in Parliament. Critics argue it violates the presumption of innocence by punishing ministers on arrest rather than conviction. Opposition parties fear misuse of the Bill to target political rivals and destabilise state governments. Allegations were made that central investigative agencies could be used selectively against opposition leaders. Leaders like Mamata Banerjee described the Bill as a threat to democracy and federalism, warning it could lead to authoritarian control. AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi criticised the Bill for undermining the separation of powers by making the executive act as judge and executioner.
Joint Parliamentary Committee
The Bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) comprising members from both Houses of Parliament. The JPC’s task is to scrutinise the Bill in detail and submit a report before the next parliamentary session. Such committees are temporary and dissolve after completing their mandate. While their recommendations carry persuasive weight, they are not binding on the government.
Implications
The Bill’s focus on removal based on arrest challenges established legal principles, including the presumption of innocence. It introduces a new threshold for ministerial accountability, potentially increasing political instability. The provision for reappointment after release offers some flexibility but does not fully address concerns about misuse. The Bill marks ongoing tensions between governance reforms and protection of democratic rights.
| Related | |
|---|---|
