A landmark legislative package was presented, in August 2025, in the Lok Sabha by the Union Home Minister and Minister of Cooperation, Amit Shah. This package comprised the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025; the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025; and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025. Collectively, these proposed bills were introduced to curb and prevent political corruption while responding to the public outrage regarding the ethics of the governance. In his address to the House, the home minister emphasised that these measures reflect the government’s commitment to integrity in public life and constitute a firm response to public corruption.
According to the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, a minister shall be removed from his office in case: (a) he/she is charged with an offence that, under the relevant law, carries a statutory punishment at least of five or more years’ imprisonment; and (b) he/she has been detained for 30 consecutive days.
Such ministers can be removed by the president or the governor with the consent of the prime minister or the chief minister, respectively. Or, they may be removed automatically on the 31st consecutive day since they were detained. This provision is also applicable to the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Two other bills have been introduced to apply these provisions to the UTs of Puducherry and J&K.
Background
In the last few years, the Indian political system has witnessed a concerning trend—certain chief ministers and other ministers continued to run their offices even while serving imprisonment. These individuals maintained their executive authority without resigning from their posts, thereby creating an unprecedented administrative situation.
The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, was introduced to close this legal loophole. This bill focuses on raising the ethical standards of governance and society, which, many feel, have been declining day by day. It also aims to restore the core values of integrity and honesty to the Indian political system.
Key Issues and their Analyses
Some of the major issues of the bills and their analyses are explained below:
The basic structure of the Constitution may be breached by the bills.
The bills raise concerns regarding a possible breach of the basic structure of the Constitution. Under the proposed provisions, the prime minister, the chief minister, or any minister shall cease to hold an office of government after completing 30 consecutive days of their judicial arrest. However, arrest may take place merely upon accusation, before any offence is proved.
The process effectively involves only two parties, i.e., the investigative agencies and the court, which confirm if the arrest is valid and if the bail is eligible. However, the probability of guilt is not inferred.
During Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case in 1973, the Supreme Court specified the Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. The Apex Court ruled that Parliament is not authorised to make any modifications to the essential features of the Constitution (or its basic structure) even while exercising its amending power under Article 368, though it may make other amendments to the Constitution.
The basic structure of the Indian Constitution, with regard to its four features, violated by the bills potentially are:
(i) Parliamentary Form of Democracy
(ii) Separation of Powers
(iii) Federalism
(iv) Rule of Law
Each feature that may potentially be violated by the bills is analysed below:
Parliamentary Form of Democracy: This feature may be breached by the bills owing to the following reasons:
Meddling with the Powers of the Lok Sabha: In a parliamentary democracy, the prime minister can be elected only by the Lok Sabha, after which the president appoints him/her. The prime minister maintains power through the support of the majority of members of the Lok Sabha.
Only the Lok Sabha has been authorised to remove the prime minister from the office if the majority of its members express a lack of confidence in the government (vote of no-confidence motion). However, the proposal of the bills formally authorises the investigative agencies to decide the fate of the prime minister if he/she can continue their term of office.
Restricting the Discretion of the Prime Minister: As per the Indian Constitution under articles 74 and 75, the prime minister is authorised to choose or reshuffle the Council of Ministers. In 2014, in the Manoj Narula vs Union of India case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the prime minister or the chief minister has the constitutional right to select their ministers. However, the Bills restrict the prime ministers authority and dismiss his judgement by proposing the removal of Ministers after 30 days of their detention for a serious offence of which they are merely accused. As per the Bills, investigative agencies are authorised to alter the organisation of the Council of Ministers.
Distortion of Separation of Powers: In 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case, the Supreme Court ruled that the basic structure of the constitution also includes the separation of powers among the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. In a parliamentary democracy, the legislature is responsible for electing the government and has the power to dissolve the government.
Later in 2023, in the Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India case, the Supreme Court, apart from reasserting this principle, expressed that there is a ‘triple chain of accountability’ in the parliamentary democracy, i.e., i) permanent executive is answerable to the government; ii) the government is answerable to the legislature, and iii) the legislatures are, in turn, answerable to the citizens of India.
The proposed bills may threaten this democratic chain. By mandating the removal of the prime minister or a chief minister after 30 days of detention for a serious offence committed by them, they authorise the permanent executive to alter the term of elected officials.
Consequently, the chain of democratic accountability is hampered; the principle of separation of powers is weakened; and the system of checks and balances is effectively neutralised.
Federalism: In India, federalism involves two levels of government, i.e., the Union and the states. The respective electorates elect the government at each of these levels. As per the Supreme Court, the basic structure of the constitution also includes federalism. In 1994, in the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case, the same was reasserted. Further, it was noted by the court that the Union and the states have separate powers, which allow each of them to work independently within their respective areas of jurisdiction.
The principle of federalism may be breached by the bills due to the following reasons:
- Destabilisation of Elected Governments: One level of government can unseat another level of government. The bills propose that a law enforcement agency working under the authority of the union government can arrest and detain the chief minister of a state accused of a serious crime, thereby leading to their removal at the end of 30 days of their detention. As a result, the state government would be dissolved.
- Reciprocal Instability: In the similar manner, a law enforcement agency working under the authority of a state government can arrest and detain the prime minister or the chief minister of another state while complying with a state law. As a result, the union government or that particular state government would be dissolved.
- Restricting the Discretion of the Prime Minister or Chief Minister: The bills provide that a minister can be arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days if they are accused of a serious offence. While doing so, the investigative agencies of one level of government may bypass the discretion of the head of the other level of government for selecting their council of ministers.
Rule of Law: According to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, every individual has the right to life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his/her life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Further, according to Article 14 of the Constitution, all individuals in India are equal before the law and no one will get special privileges, considering their birth, religion, creed, etc. It also states that all individuals in similar circumstances will get equal protection of the law, i.e., the law shall be applicable to them in the same manner if they are in the same situation. The Supreme Court has ruled that this Article puts a ban on arbitrariness.
As per the Rule of Law, arbitrariness can be addressed using judicial review. In 1975, in the Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case, the Supreme Court asserted that the basic structure of the Constitution consists of the Rule of Law as its important feature.
If criminal procedure is carried out, at first, an FIR is filed with the police, who then conduct an investigation. If they find proper evidence, they register a charge sheet. After that, the evidence is sent to the court for examination. If the court is convinced that there is sufficient reason to believe that an offence has been committed, it charges the accused and starts the trial.
Moreover, the bills state that a minister, a chief minister or the prime minister can be removed from the office if they are accused of a serious crime punishable with imprisonment of five years or more and detained for 30 days. At this stage, however, judicial determination of guilt has not taken place. In addition, the accused may be arrested even before guilt is established in trial.
Conclusion
While the legislative package, constituting the three discussed bills, aims to tackle the ethical challenges of ‘governance from custody’, the existing provisions risk being seen as arbitrary. By removing leaders at pre-trial stage, the bills bypass the presumption of innocence and ultimately raise concerns regarding their alignment with the basic structure of the constitution, especially, with regard to Separation of Powers and the Rule of Law.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.
