Answer

Introduction

The proposed Amendment Bill mandates automatic removal of ministers, including the PM and CMs, detained for over 30 days in offences carrying a five-year or more sentence. While it aligns with the spirit of Articles 75(3) and 164(2) ensuring collective responsibility, it diverges from the Constituent Assembly’s stance rejecting rigid disqualification norms, as seen in B.R. Ambedkar’s rebuttal to K.T. Shah’s proposal. 

Body

Positive Implications of the Proposed Bill

• Strengthening Accountability: Automatic removal discourages criminally accused individuals from continuing in positions of power.
  Eg: Articles 75(3) and 164(2) of the Constitution of India ensure ministerial accountability to the legislature.
• Upholding Ethical Standards: Sets a high moral benchmark for public office, reinforcing the principle that leaders must be beyond reproach.
  Eg: In Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013), conviction led to automatic disqualification, reflecting similar intent.
• Deterrence Against Criminalisation of Politics: Acts as a preventive mechanism against leaders facing serious criminal allegations.
  Eg: 46% of MPs in 2024 Lok Sabha had pending criminal cases (ADR Report).
• Boosting Public Confidence: Assures citizens that tainted ministers cannot misuse office during detention.
  Eg: SC in Manoj Narula vs Union of India (2014) stressed the importance of purity in public life.
• Ensuring Temporary Neutrality in Governance: Prevents interference with investigations or misuse of ministerial power during detention.

Negative Implications of the Proposed Bill

• Violation of Presumption of Innocence: Removal based on detention, not conviction, contradicts Article 21’s due process principle.
  Eg: Many opposition leaders have been detained and later released for lack of evidence.
• Overbroad Scope of Offences: Applies to over 2,000 offences, including minor ones with five-year terms, creating disproportionate consequences.
  Eg: Vidhi Centre found even obstructing a public officer falls under such categories.
• Undermining Democratic Mandate: Automatic removal undermines voter choice and weakens legislative stability.
  Eg: Constituent Assembly rejected K.T. Shah’s proposal to avoid overregulation of qualifications.
• Impact on Governance Continuity: Frequent disruptions in ministerial positions may paralyse executive functioning.
• Delay in Reinstatement Despite Acquittal: Even if released or acquitted later, political damage remains irreversible.
  

Alternative Measures to Ensure Integrity in Public Life

• Fast-Tracking Criminal Trials of Ministers: Special courts should handle serious cases against elected representatives within a fixed timeline to prevent prolonged misuse of office.
• Independent Oversight Committees: A constitutionally backed panel can recommend suspension of ministers based on prima facie evidence, reducing political interference.
  Eg: Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013 serves as a model.
• Judicial Oversight for Interim Suspension: Courts should assess detention cases and recommend temporary removal to balance due process with accountability.
• Strengthening Election Commission Powers: Empowering ECI to monitor and recommend disqualification ensures timely action against grave offences.
• Statutory Code of Conduct for Ministers: A legal code mandating resignation upon serious charges after fair judicial review ensures integrity in governance.
• Transparency in Investigation Processes: Independent, non-political investigation agencies help prevent misuse of law enforcement for political vendetta.
  Eg: Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recommended independent investigation agencies.

Conclusion

The Bill’s intent to enhance accountability is laudable, but its automatic disqualification clause risks undermining due process, democratic mandates, and political stability. A more nuanced approach, fast-tracking trials, judicially reviewed interim suspensions, and independent oversight aligns with constitutional morality while safeguarding Article 21 rights. True integrity in public life must be pursued through strengthened justice mechanisms, not by bypassing them.

DOWNLOAD PDF