130th Constitution Amendment Bill

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance

Context

• The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill is expected to adopt its report soon. 

About

• Background: The bill was introduced in 2025 and was subsequently referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) following intense opposition protests.
• Major Features: The Bill provides for the removal of a minister if he/she is accused of an offence punishable with five or more years of imprisonment, and has been arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days.
  • If the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister remains in custody for 30 consecutive days, they must resign; otherwise, they would automatically cease to hold office on the 31st day.
  • The removal can be directed by the President or Governor upon the advice of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, respectively, or automatically on the 31st day of detention.
• At present, ministers leave office through resignation, dismissal by the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, or disqualification following conviction under existing laws.
  • The proposed amendment introduces prolonged custody, rather than conviction, as a ground for vacating public office.
  • The provision is intended to protect the integrity of public office and ensure that individuals facing serious criminal proceedings do not continue in executive positions for extended periods.
• Critics have argued that the Bill:
  • May violate the presumption of innocence by linking removal from office to arrest rather than conviction.
  • Could allow misuse of investigative agencies for political purposes.
  • May raise questions under the Constitution’s basic structure doctrine, particularly regarding democracy, federalism, and the rule of law.

Criminalisation of politics

• Criminalisation of politics refers to the growing participation of individuals with criminal backgrounds in electoral politics.
• A serious criminal charge includes offences where the maximum punishment is five years or more, or those that are non-bailable.
• In the Lok Sabha, the share of MPs facing serious criminal cases has more than doubled, from 14% in 2009 to 31% in 2024.
  • In the Assemblies, the share was 29% in 2024, which accounts for more than 1,200 MLAs.
• Andhra Pradesh had the highest share of MLAs with serious criminal cases at 56%, followed by Telangana (50%). 

Reasons of Criminalisation of politics

• Weak Disqualification Laws: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) disqualifies candidates only after conviction. Since trials take years, candidates contest multiple elections before any judgment.
• Money and Muscle Power: Candidates with financial resources and local influence are seen as “winnable” candidates.
• Low Voter Awareness: Affidavits disclose candidate details, but many voters remain unaware or vote on caste/religious lines.
• Party Complicity: Parties often justify fielding tainted candidates by citing “popularity” and “electoral chances.”
• Judicial Delays: Frequent adjournments and politically motivated withdrawal of cases allow criminals to escape conviction.

Impact of Criminalisation of Politics

• Erosion of Democratic Values: It undermines the principle of free and fair elections and voters are left with restricted choices, weakening the spirit of representative democracy.
• Corruption: The presence of criminal elements escalates electoral malpractices such as voter intimidation, booth capturing, and the use of black money in campaigns.
• Decline of Public Trust: Repeated election of tainted representatives, lead to declining voter turnout and weakening people’s faith in democratic institutions.
• Distortion of Policy-Making: Elected representatives use political power to protect personal and criminal networks and divert policy-making away from public interest.

Key Committee Recommendations

• Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) & 2nd ARC (2007) recommended partial state funding of elections to curb the use of black money and reduce corruption.
• The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in its 2002 report recommended measures to enhance the accountability of political parties, including the statutory audit of party expenses and the disclosure of candidates’ assets and liabilities. 
• The Law Commission’s 244th Report (2014) recommended disqualifying politicians from contesting elections as soon as charges are framed against them for offenses that carry a maximum punishment of five years or more.
  • The report specifically recommended expediting trials for sitting MPs and MLAs by establishing fast-track courts.

Supreme Court Interventions

• In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Court ruled that any sitting MP, MLA, or MLC would be immediately disqualified upon conviction for a crime with a sentence of two years or more.
• In Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), the Court directed political parties to publicize the criminal records of candidates, detailing the nature of offences and charges.
• In 2020, the Supreme Court of India ordered political parties to publish details of candidates with pending criminal cases on their websites, social media, and in newspapers, along with the reasons for their selection, within 48 hours of candidate selection.

Conclusion

• Criminalisation of politics undermines democratic governance, weakens the rule of law, and erodes public trust in institutions. 
• Addressing it requires a combination of electoral reforms, speedy trials of cases against legislators, greater transparency in political funding, stronger internal democracy within political parties, and informed voter participation.

Source: TH