The Lok Sabha witnessed intense protests as Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, which proposes the removal of jailed Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and ministers from office.
The Lok Sabha erupted in protests yesterday when Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill. This proposed legislation stipulates that the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and ministers could be removed from office if they are jailed for more than 30 days for offenses that carry a jail term of over five years.
The Opposition quickly condemned the bill, labeling it “draconian” and “unconstitutional.” They accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of planning to misuse central agencies to target non-BJP Chief Ministers, imprison them, and destabilize state governments. In contrast, the government defended the bill, asserting it aims to “elevate the declining moral standards” and uphold integrity in politics.
Upon closer examination, the motivations behind the bill reveal a complex narrative. A constitutional amendment requires passage in both Houses of Parliament by a two-thirds majority. Currently, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) lacks the necessary numbers to secure this without support from a key opposition party, such as the Congress. Given the current political climate, the Opposition appears unwilling to cooperate, raising questions about the government’s decision to introduce a bill it may not be able to implement in its current form.
The Constitution Amendment Bill seeks to amend three articles in the Constitution of India—Articles 75, 164, and 239AA. It states that any minister, Chief Minister, or Prime Minister who is arrested and remains in custody for over 30 days due to an accusation of an offense punishable by a jail term of five years or more shall be removed from office. Notably, this removal can occur based solely on an allegation, without the necessity of a conviction. Furthermore, the law allows for the possibility of reappointment to high office after the individual’s release.
The bill’s “statement of objects and reasons” emphasizes that elected representatives embody the hopes and aspirations of the Indian populace. It stresses that these officials should rise above political interests and act solely in the public interest. The draft legislation argues that a minister facing serious criminal allegations and detention may undermine constitutional morality and good governance, thereby eroding public trust.
During the introduction of the bill, the Lok Sabha experienced chaotic scenes, with some members tearing up documents and throwing them at the Home Minister. Opposition parties have long accused the government of misusing central investigative agencies, claiming that this new legislation would further push India toward a “police state.” Senior Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra described the bill as “draconian,” asserting that presenting it as an “anti-corruption measure” is merely a smokescreen.
Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee criticized the legislation, suggesting its true intention is to maintain power and control without accountability. Similarly, Shiv Sena (UBT) accused the government of attempting to “end democracy and individual freedom,” warning that it could lead the country toward dictatorship. AIMIM chief and Hyderabad MP stated that the government is intent on creating a police state, arguing that this bill would be the “final nail in the coffin” for elected governments.
The timing of the bill’s introduction is also noteworthy, occurring just before the conclusion of the Monsoon Session. The government indicated that the bill would be sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, suggesting a lack of urgency in getting it passed. This approach is unusual, as contentious legislation is typically forwarded to committees after being introduced, rather than before. The Chair has decided to have the bill examined by a Joint Committee comprising 21 Lok Sabha members and 10 Rajya Sabha members, appointed by the respective leaders of both Houses. This process is likely to prolong the discussion surrounding the bill.
The debate in the Lok Sabha became personal at one point, with Congress leader KC Venugopal referencing Shah’s arrest during his tenure as Gujarat Home Minister in 2010. Shah responded by emphasizing the importance of moral values in governance, asserting that he had resigned before his arrest and that those facing serious charges should not occupy constitutional positions.
For a constitutional amendment to pass, it must secure a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament before being sent to the President for assent. The Lok Sabha currently has 542 members, requiring a minimum of 361 votes for a two-thirds majority. The NDA, with its strength of 293, would need significant support from non-aligned parties to reach this threshold. The situation in the Rajya Sabha mirrors this, as the Upper House has 239 members, necessitating 160 votes for a two-thirds majority. The NDA’s current tally of 132 votes falls short of this requirement, indicating that the bill cannot clear Parliament without the Opposition’s backing.
Even if the bill were to pass through Parliament, it would face further challenges. The legislation impacts the federal structure of the country and would require approval from at least half of the states and Union Territories. However, the BJP’s dominance in many states may facilitate this process. Additionally, the bill could face legal challenges in the Supreme Court, as several MPs have argued it contradicts the basic structure of the Constitution and undermines the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
Given these numerous obstacles, one might question the rationale behind the government’s introduction of such a contentious law. The answer may lie in a strategic perception battle. The Opposition has been vocal in criticizing the government over various issues, including allegations of vote theft in Bihar. By introducing this legislation, the government may aim to frame the Opposition’s protests as resistance to an anti-corruption initiative and a reluctance to promote cleaner politics.
Moreover, the Opposition’s likely boycott of the Joint Parliamentary Panel could provide the ruling BJP with further ammunition to criticize Congress and its allies for opposing a law intended to penalize criminality in politics. Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra has suggested that the government lacks the necessary numbers to pass the bill, asserting that its introduction serves to divert attention from the Opposition’s campaign against alleged vote manipulation.
When questioned about the bill’s intent, government sources indicated that the objective is to spotlight corruption in politics. They cited the case of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who did not resign following his arrest, highlighting a lack of clarity in the Constitution regarding whether an arrested minister is required to step down. The government refrained from introducing such legislation immediately following the Kejriwal incident to avoid appearing politically motivated. However, with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) ousted from power in Delhi, the timing appears more favorable.
Sources within the government have stated that the bill’s passage is not the primary concern; rather, the goal is to place the Opposition under scrutiny. If they oppose the bill, it could send a message that they are comfortable with individuals running ministries from jail. Additionally, government representatives have countered allegations that the law could be used to target non-BJP Chief Ministers through central agencies, asserting that arrests follow due process and individuals can seek judicial relief at any time.
Source: Original article