New Delhi, Aug.20,2025: The amendment mandates that if a Union Minister or the Prime Minister is detained for 30 consecutive days, the President must remove them on the advice of the Prime Minister by the 31st day. If they don’t resign, their office
130th Constitution Amendment Bill 2025: What’s in It?
At the forefront, the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill 2025 proposes that any Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister—whether at the Centre, state, or Union Territory—who is arrested and held in custody for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable with at least five years of imprisonment shall be removed from their position.
Advertisement
Why Now? The Trigger for the Bill
This bold legislative proposal stems from a perceived governance gap: no constitutional barrier currently prevents a minister from continuing in office during prolonged detention. Following high-profile arrests—such as those of Arvind Kejriwal and V Senthil Balaji, who retained office while in custody—the government argues this bill is necessary to uphold integrity.
Key Provisions and Process
3.1 Central Level: Article 75
The amendment mandates that if a Union Minister or the Prime Minister is detained for 30 consecutive days, the President must remove them on the advice of the Prime Minister by the 31st day. If they don’t resign, their office automatically falls vacant thereafter. Crucially, they can be re-appointed post-release.
Advertisement
3.2 State & Union Territories: Articles 164 & 239AA
The same framework applies to state CMs/ministers (via Article 164) and Delhi ministers (via Article 239AA). The Governor (or Lieutenant Governor for Delhi/J&K) handles removal on the CM’s advice, with automatic cessation if no advice is tendered. Re-appointment post-release remains allowed.
Immediate Political Repercussions
Unveiled on 20 August 2025, in the Lok Sabha, the bill sparked immediate uproar. Opposition MPs tore copies, raised slogans, and disrupted proceedings, leading to multiple adjournments.
Advertisement
The bill was swiftly referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further scrutiny.
Supporters vs Critics: The Debate Unfolds
Supporters’ View
Critics’ Stance
Integrity & Accountability: The bill is a “powerful step” toward cleaner governance.
Authoritarian Overreach: Critics call it “draconian,” “unconstitutional,” and a threat to democratic norms.
Restoring public trust: Removes ministers under prolonged suspicion.
Weaponization risk: Could destabilize opposition-led governments via politically motivated arrests.
Limited application: Only applies to offenses punishable by 5+ years, not minor charges.
Separation of powers compromised: Executive enforcement equates to judge and jury.
Re-appointment allowed: Ensures flexibility and justice post-release.
Punishes without conviction: Removes individuals before guilt is established.
Notably, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor diverged from his party to call the move “reasonable.”
What’s Next? Joint Committee and Parliamentary Strategy
The bill now goes to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), with representatives from both houses and all parties, to conduct detailed examination and propose amendments before the next parliamentary session.
Advertisement
Analysts suggest this move may be aimed at setting a legislative tone—demonstrating a strong stance on anti-corruption—even if immediate enactment is unlikely given the Monsoon Session ends on 21 August and the government lacks a two-thirds majority.
A Transformative or Divisive Move?
The 130th Constitution Amendment Bill 2025 undeniably stakes a bold claim—championing integrity and demanding accountability. Yet it treads a fine line between reform and overreach. Whether it emerges as a landmark in anti-corruption or a tool of political destabilization hinges on the JPC’s scrutiny and the nation’s democratic resolve.
