Swaraat / Pattukottai Balaraman
In a significant move to reinforce democratic accountability, the NDA Government introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha on 20 August 2025. This proposed legislation addresses a critical gap in our governance framework: the continued tenure of ministers who remain in custody for serious criminal offences.
Key Provisions of the Bill
The amendment outlines two essential conditions for the removal of a Minister—whether at the Centre, in a State, or in the Union Territory of Delhi:- The Minister must be accused of a serious offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more.
– The Minister must be arrested and detained in custody for thirty consecutive days.These conditions must be fulfilled together. For example, if a Minister is arrested twice—once for 16 days and again for 15 days—the total duration may be 31 days, but since it is not consecutive, the clause will not apply.
Mechanism of Removal
– Upon completion of thirty consecutive days in custody:-
A State Minister shall be removed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister.- A Central Minister shall be removed on the advice of the Prime Minister.
– If the Chief Minister or Prime Minister fails to advise removal, the Minister shall automatically cease to hold office from the thirty-first day.
– In the case of the Chief Minister or Prime Minister themselves, they must resign by the thirtieth day of custody. Failing which, they too shall cease to hold office.This provision overrides the conventional prerogative of the Chief Minister or Prime Minister to appoint or remove ministers. It affirms that no individual can run a ministry from inside jail—a practice that undermines democratic norms and public trust.
Judicial and Constitutional Context
Currently, neither the President nor the Governor can compel the removal of a Minister, even if they are in custody. The Supreme Court has refrained from issuing direct orders in such cases, merely suggesting that voluntary resignation would be in the spirit of democracy.Our constitutional visionaries did not anticipate a scenario where elected representatives would not only be imprisoned but also refuse to relinquish office. This amendment seeks to correct that anomaly.
Political Context and Precedents
The cases of Shri Arvind Kejriwal and Shri Senthil Balaji—both of whom continued to run their ministries from jail—appear to have prompted this legislative response.In contrast, statesmen like Shri L.K. Advani resigned even upon mere accusation, later returning to office after being cleared. Such conduct exemplifies democratic maturity. Notably, the Prime Minister has voluntarily included his own post under the purview of this amendment, even though it was not part of the original draft.This gesture should be seen in light of his nearing the end of his tenure, and more importantly, as a precedent for future Prime Ministers from the NDA or BJP.
Addressing Objections
Critics argue that the amendment could be misused for political vendetta. However, it is the judiciary—not the legislature—that determines the seriousness of the offence and the custodial status.Another concern is that the accused may not yet be convicted, and the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” must be upheld. The amendment respects this premise—it does not bar reappointment once the individual is released. It simply ensures that ministerial duties are not discharged from behind bars.
Scope for Refinement
While thirty days is a reasonable threshold, there may be genuine delays in securing bail due to court vacations or procedural bottlenecks. Legislators may consider extending this window to 45 or even 60 days to accommodate such contingencies without diluting the intent.Conclusion: A Step Towards Democratic RenewalThose who oppose this amendment as vindictive may be driven by fear or lack of faith in the judiciary. As the Tamil saying goes:“மடியில் கனம் இருந்தால் வழியில் பயம்”(If there is weight in the belly, there is fear on the path.)Let us not allow fear to cloud our judgment.This amendment is a welcome step towards restoring dignity and accountability in public office. It affirms that ministerial power must be exercised with integrity, and that custodial status—however temporary—must not be a shield against democratic norms.Let us hope this is the beginning of more such reforms in the days to come.