Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 – An Analysis

 Background & Context

1. Trigger Events:
   • In 2023, Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate.
   • The Governor attempted to dismiss him from the Council of Ministers, leading to constitutional friction between the Governor vs Chief Minister and raising doubts over whether an arrested Minister could continue in office.
   • Similar controversies followed with the arrests of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren.
2. Policy Rationale:
   • The government argues that there is a constitutional vacuum—while civil servants are suspended immediately upon arrest, there was no such rule for Ministers.
   • The Bill seeks to uphold constitutional morality, reduce criminalization of politics, and maintain public confidence in governance.

Key Provisions of the Bill

1. Applicability:
   • Prime Minister, Union Ministers, State Chief Ministers, State Ministers, and Delhi Ministers.
2. Grounds for Removal:
   • If detained beyond 30 consecutive days for offences punishable with 5 years or more imprisonment (“serious charges”).
3. Articles Amended:
   • Article 75 → Union Council of Ministers: The President must remove the PM/Ministers after a 30-day detention.
   • Article 164 → State Council of Ministers: The Governor must remove the CM/Ministers in the same circumstances.
   • Article 239AA → Applies identical provisions to Delhi’s CM and Ministers.
4. Reappointment Clause:
   • Once released, the person can be reappointed as Minister.
5. Automatic Cessation:
   • If the CM does not advise the removal of Ministers under detention, removal will occur automatically.

Constitutional Principles Engaged

1. Presumption of Innocence:
   • Criminal jurisprudence: Innocent until proven guilty.
   • Here, mere detention, not conviction, triggers disqualification.
2. Basic Structure Doctrine:
   • Supreme Court (Kesavananda Bharati, Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, etc.) protects democracy, the rule of law, separation of powers.
   • Critics argue the Bill may violate this doctrine by punishing individuals without trial.
3. Separation of Powers:
   • The amendment empowers executive heads (President/Governor) to enforce removal, based on arrest, often following police/agency action.
   • This raises the risk of executive interference in the democratic mandate.
4. Federalism:
   • Strong fear that central investigative agencies (ED, CBI, NIA) could be used to target Opposition CMs/Ministers, undermining elected state governments.

Supporters’ Arguments

• Integrity in politics: Leaders should be “above suspicion.”
• Parity with Civil Services: Bureaucrats are suspended immediately after arrest—why not Ministers, who hold more responsibility?
• Public Trust: Arrested leaders running governments erode citizens’ faith.
• Clarity & Uniformity: Removes ambiguity (as seen in Senthil Balaji’s case).

Opposition & Critics’ Concerns

1. Draconian & Politically Motivated:
   • M.K. Stalin (DMK): Called it a “black law” turning India into a dictatorship.
   • Mamata Banerjee (TMC): Compared it to a “Super-Emergency” and “Hitler’s tactics.”
   • Owaisi (AIMIM): Warned of a police state, where investigative agencies dictate political outcomes.
2. Presumption of Innocence Violated:
   • Arrest ≠ guilt. Many politicians are arrested on flimsy charges or detained preemptively, which may later be dismissed in court.
3. Risk of Misuse by Centre:
   • Opposition fears BJP may use ED/CBI arrests to topple Opposition state governments.
4. Undermining Federalism:
   • Weakens the autonomy of states by allowing centrally influenced arrests to destabilize governments.
5. Implementation Chaos:
   • If a PM/CM is removed but later acquitted, frequent removals and reappointments may destabilize governance.

Legal Challenges Likely

1. Supreme Court Test:
   • Highly probable that the Bill will be challenged for violating the basic structure doctrine (democracy, rule of law).
   • Courts may ask: Is arrest sufficient ground for removal, without conviction?
2. Comparative Jurisprudence:
   • In most democracies, disqualification comes only upon conviction, not mere detention.
   • India already has disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, upon conviction for 2+ years.

Current Status

• Introduced in Lok Sabha: 20 August 2025 by Home Minister Amit Shah.
• Referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC): For further scrutiny before passage.
• Next Steps: Debate in both Houses → Passage → Ratification by half the States (since it amends provisions relating to States).

Balanced Assessment

• Positive:
  • Addresses the criminalization of politics.
  • Creates uniform legal clarity across the Union, States, and Delhi.
  • Ensures Ministers facing grave charges do not continue unchecked.
• Negative:
  • Risks being weaponized politically.
  • Contradicts the presumption of innocence.
  • It may destabilize state governments through the misuse of arrest powers.
  • Opens the door to authoritarian tendencies.

Conclusion

The 130th Amendment Bill, 2025, is one of the most contentious constitutional reforms in recent times.

• If passed, it would significantly alter the balance between the rule of law and democratic mandate.
• While intended to promote clean politics, it may undermine federalism and civil liberties if misused.
• Its fate will depend not only on parliamentary numbers but also on judicial review and possible public backlash.