Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill 

Syllabus: GS2/Governance 

In News

• The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill has deferred the adoption of its draft report after completing voting on two of its five recommendations. 
• The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 proposes to remove the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Ministers from office if they are held in custody for serious criminal offences.

About the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025

• Objective: The Bill seeks to ensure that persons subjected to extended detention for serious criminal offences do not occupy high constitutional posts.
• Scope: The Bill will be applicable to the Central Government, State Governments and UT of Delhi.
  • Bills have separately introduced similar provisions for Puducherry and Jammu & Kashmir.
• Reasons for removal: A Minister may be removed on the following grounds:
  • If he/she is charged with an offence the punishment for which provides for imprisonment for a term of five years or more, 
  • and If he/she remains arrested and detained for a period of thirty consecutive days.
• Removal of Ministers procedure: They are removable by the President (in case of Union Minister) or the Governor (in case of State Minister) on the advice of the Prime Minister or Chief Minister respectively.
  • The Minister will be deemed to have vacated office automatically on the 31st day of detention if no action is taken.
• Prime Minister & Chief Ministers: The Prime Minister or Chief Minister is required to resign after completion of 30 days’ detention.
  • If they do not resign, they automatically cease to hold office from the next day.

Key Issues and Concerns 

• Constitutional Issues : The Bills allow automatic removal of PMs, CMs and Ministers after 30 days of detention for serious offences, raising concerns over removal based on allegations without conviction and its impact on the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Misuse of Power : Prime ministers and chief ministers are responsible to elected legislatures.
  • Automatic removal could give investigative agencies the power to decide the fate of elected governments.
  • It may also bring down the discretion of the Prime Minister/Chief Minister in selection of Ministers.
• Separation of powers. The arrest of elected leaders may pave the way for executive agencies to manipulate the tenure of governments.
  • This could weaken the chain of democratic accountability from citizens to legislatures to governments.
• Federalism : Arrests by one level of government’s agencies could affect another level of government.
  • It may upset the balance of Union and State governments.
• Rule of Law: Arrest is for suspicion or investigation, not proof of guilt.
  • At the arrest stage, courts only look at the legality of the arrest, not guilt.
  • The removal of a Minister prior to judicial determination may be arbitrary and in violation of the principles of fairness.

JPC’s Draft Recommendations

• Replace “removal” with “suspension”:  Instead of automatically removing ministers, they should be suspended until legal proceedings conclude.
• Automatic restoration provision: If the person is acquitted or if prosecution does not proceed within a specified period, the suspension should be reversed.
• Define “serious criminal offences”:  Such offences should include crimes punishable with imprisonment of five years or more.

Way Ahead

• The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, seeks to promote clean politics and accountability in governance. But mandatory removal of leaders on the basis of mere arrest and detention, raise concerns of Article 21, presumption of innocence and democratic principles.
• So there is a need for a balanced approach that guarantees ethical public leadership while safeguarding due process. 
• Better solutions on constitutional grounds would be more transparency, faster trials, more independence of institutions.

Source :TH