The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 which says that any minister who has been in jail for 30 days for a serious offence will lose his post was sent to a Joint Committee.

• The Bill will amend Article 75 of the Constitution, which primarily deals with the appointment and responsibilities of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister.

About Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC)

• JPC is set up by Parliament for a special purpose, such as for the detailed scrutiny of a subject or Bill. 
• It has members from both Houses, and is dissolved after its term ends or its task has been completed.
• The mandate of a JPC depends on the motion constituting it. 
• While its recommendations have a persuasive value, they are not binding on the government.

Risks in the Proposed Amendment Bill

• Overbroad Scope of Offences: The bill applies to detention under any law with punishment of five years or more.
  • This covers over 2,000 offences, from grave crimes (organised crime, drug trafficking) to relatively minor infractions (obstructing a public officer, certain IT Act provisions).
  • Poor drafting creates risk of misuse : e.g., a minister who once faced a protest-related case could be disqualified for a minor offence.
• Reversal of Presumption of Innocence
  • A hallmark of our legal system is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.
  • However, the provision rests on the fact of detention rather than conviction.
  • Removal from constitutional office based on detention alone not only carries a significant political cost but also risks misuse of investigative agencies.
  • The amendment also overlooks two key realities: First, that criminal trials in India often take years to conclude – even for elected officials; and second, that it has become harder to get bail under many recently toughened laws.
• Potential for Political Misuse
  • The law can be weaponised to target opposition leaders.
  • A Chief Minister could be arrested by central agencies before elections, forced to resign due to custody, crippling their party’s campaign.
  • The Bill allows a person to return to office after release. But the damage – loss of power, reputation, and political momentum – would already be done.

Constituent Assembly’s Vision

• When K T Shah proposed barring ministers convicted of offences involving bribery, corruption or moral turpitude, B R Ambedkar acknowledged the good intentions but cautioned that the Constitution should not attempt to micromanage such qualifications. 
• Instead, he argued, the “good sense” of the Prime Minister, legislature and people ought to be relied upon.
• The present proposal marks a departure from that choice.
• Ambedkar warned against rigid rules, as they could be circumvented or misused and that democracy requires us to take on “impossible tasks.” Ensuring the purity of public life is one of them.

Alternatives to Ensure Accountability

• Special Courts for Politicians’ Criminal Cases: Fast-track serious cases involving ministers.
• Establish special courts with day-to-day hearings for impartial and timely trials.
  • This ensures accountability without reversing fundamental rights or democratic safeguards.
  • Strengthens the justice system instead of creating a tool for political vendetta.

Conclusion

The bill’s intent of accountability is laudable, but its design risks undermining democracy.

• The solution lies in strengthening judicial processes, not in shortcut disqualifications that compromise fairness, justice, and the spirit of the Constitution.

DOWNLOAD PDF