The Hindu: Published on 25 August 2025.
Why in News?
The Union Government has introduced the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, which mandates the removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or any Minister if they are arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days in connection with a criminal offence.
The Bill has raised significant debate about its necessity, implications, and possible misuse in India’s parliamentary democracy.
What does the Bill propose?
Amends Articles 75 & 164 of the Constitution (Union & State Council of Ministers).
Provision:
If a Minister is arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days in relation to an offence punishable with ≥ 5 years imprisonment, they shall be removed.
Removal shall be based on advice of the PM/CM, but if advice is not given, automatic cessation occurs on the 31st day.
If the PM/CM themselves are detained for 30 days, they must resign on the 31st day.
Once released, they can be reappointed.
Extension: Similar provisions for Delhi (Article 239AA), Jammu & Kashmir, and Puducherry.
Process: Requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament → referred to Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).
Existing Legal Framework:
Representation of the People Act (1951):
A person convicted & sentenced to ≥ 2 years jail → disqualified from Parliament/Legislature for duration + 6 years post-release.
Earlier Loophole: Section 8(4) allowed sitting members to continue if appeal pending.
2013 Lily Thomas Case (SC): Struck down Section 8(4) → immediate disqualification upon conviction.
Current law: Disqualification applies to being an MP/MLA, not to being a Minister.
Key Issues with the Bill:
Premature punishment:
Removal is based on arrest & detention, not conviction → undermines the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Threat to Parliamentary Democracy:
Takes away the PM/CM’s discretionary power to choose their Cabinet.
Weakens the autonomy of elected executives.
Scope for Misuse:
Mere police action could lead to removal.
Risk of political vendetta by the ruling party at the Centre, especially in opposition-ruled States.
Addressing the effect, not the cause:
The Bill targets removal after arrest, but does not prevent tainted candidates from contesting elections in the first place.
Broader Context: Criminalisation of Politics:
ADR Reports:
46% of MPs & 45% of MLAs face criminal cases.
Winning chance of a candidate with criminal background = 15.4%, vs 4.4% for a clean candidate.
Political parties often give tickets to candidates with criminal records due to “winnability.”
Way Forward / Recommendations:
Reform candidate selection:
Ban political parties from fielding candidates with serious criminal charges.
Enforce stricter scrutiny during nominations.
Strengthen judicial timelines:
Fast-track trials of elected representatives with criminal cases.
Balance accountability with fairness:
A law ensuring conviction-based removal may be fairer than removal on mere arrest.
Political self-discipline:
Parties must show responsibility in not rewarding criminal elements with tickets.
In Summary:
The 130th Amendment Bill is a bold attempt to check the criminalisation of politics, but it risks undermining democratic principles and may be misused for political vendetta. Instead of focusing on removal after arrest, reforms should start by preventing criminally tainted candidates from entering legislatures.
