CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS •

Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025

25 Aug 2025 GS 2 Polity
Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 Click to view full image

Context & Aim

  • Introduced in Lok Sabha: August 20, 2025.

  • Objective: Clean politics by forcing resignation/removal of Ministers, CMs, PM if in custody for >30 consecutive days in cases carrying punishment of 5+ years.

  • Addresses: Issue of corrupt leaders in custody continuing in power.

Constitutional Basis

  • Articles involved:

    • 75, 164, 239AA → deal with appointment & tenure of Ministers (Union, States, Delhi).

    • Ministers hold office at the pleasure of President/Governor → interpreted with constitutional morality (cases: Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker).

    • Section 8(3) of the Representation of The People Act concerns the disqualification of members on the conviction of certain offences.

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974):
The Supreme Court held that the President and Governors are only constitutional heads and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except where the Constitution explicitly provides discretion. The “pleasure doctrine” regarding ministers is not personal discretion but bound by constitutional morality and democratic norms.

Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016):
The Court ruled that the Governor cannot independently summon, advance, or dissolve Assembly sessions without ministerial advice unless expressly permitted by the Constitution. It reaffirmed that Governors must act as neutral constitutional heads, ensuring primacy of the elected government and upholding constitutional morality.

Judicial Background

  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India → stressed constitutional morality, integrity & accountability.

  • Manoj Narula v. Union of India → warned against appointing Ministers with serious criminal charges (though no automatic removal mandated).

  • Lily Thomas v. Union of India → disqualification only on conviction, not arrest. SC struck down 3-month appeal window.

Issues with the Bill

  1. Presumption of innocence violated → Removal based on custody, not conviction, undermines Article 21 (right to life & liberty).

  2. Executive discretion politicised → Dual mechanism (PM/CM advice + auto removal after 30 days). Risks partisan misuse.

  3. Inconsistent standards:

    • Legislators disqualified only after conviction (Representation of People Act).

    • Ministers forced out on arrest/detention.

    • Creates paradox: a convicted legislator can continue, while a detained Minister must resign.

  4. Revolving door problem:

    • Minister may resign after 31 days in custody → reinstated after release.

    • Leads to instability, tactical misuse of law.

  5. Over-broad scope: Applies to all offences with 5+ years punishment (even minor crimes), not just corruption/moral turpitude.

Need for Reform but with Nuance

  • Rising criminalisation in politics:

    • 2024 Lok Sabha: 46% MPs with criminal cases (↑ from 43% in 2019, 34% in 2014, 30% in 2009).

    • 55% increase in 15 years (ADR/NEW data).

  • Cleaner politics needed, but approach must balance fairness & stability.

Suggested Alternatives

  1. Link removal to judicial milestones (e.g., framing of charges, not mere arrest).

  2. Independent review mechanism → Tribunal/Judicial panel to decide removal.

  3. Interim suspension (instead of removal) during trial to maintain governance.

  4. Limit scope → only to crimes involving corruption & moral turpitude.

Conclusion

  • Bill shows strong intent against corruption but risks:

    • Undermining due process & fairness.

    • Increasing political misuse.

  • Needs recalibration by JPC → to balance democratic safeguards with ethical governance.

  • Concern:

    • Power without integrity corrodes democracy.

    • Integrity without fairness endangers it.



← Back to list