130th Constitution Amendment Bill 2025

21 Aug 2025

130th Constitution Amendment Bill 2025

Recently, the Union Government has introduced the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, 2025, aiming to curb criminalisation of politics.

  • Parliamentary Status of the Bill: The bill, along with the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. 
    • The JPC will scrutinise provisions, invite expert/legal opinions, and recommend changes before the Bill is taken up for passage in Parliament.

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.

About Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth) Amendment Bill, 2025

  • It seeks to provide for removal of the Prime Minister, a Chief Minister of a state, or any other Minister in the central or a state government, if he is arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal offences.  It also applies these provisions to the Union Territory (UT) of Delhi. 
  • Background: 
    • Arrest and Dismissal: In 2023, Tamil Nadu minister V. Senthil Balaji was arrested in an alleged money laundering case, leading Governor R. N. Ravi to dismiss him from the Cabinet.
    • Reinstatement by Chief Minister: Chief Minister M. K. Stalin reinstated Balaji after the Supreme Court granted him bail, highlighting the lack of clear rules on ministerial tenure during detention.
    • Judicial Intervention and Final Removal: The Supreme Court expressed concern over his reappointment, after which Balaji was finally removed in a Cabinet reshuffle.

Key Provisions of the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth) Amendment Bill, 2025

  • Removal Based on Detention: The bill proposes amendments to Article 75 (Union Ministers including Prime Minister), Article 164 (State Ministers including Chief Minister), and Article 239AA (Delhi Ministers).
    • A Minister arrested and detained in custody for thirty consecutive days on charges punishable with five years or more imprisonment shall be removed from office.
      • Article 75 (Union Ministers): Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President. But in practice, this operates on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister; hence, the President cannot remove a Minister independently.
      • Article 164 (State Ministers): State Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Like the Union, this is not discretionary; the Governor acts on the advice of the Chief Minister, restricting independent removal powers.
      • Article 239AA (Delhi): Special provision for the NCT of Delhi. The Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister aids and advises the Lieutenant Governor, except in matters of public order, police, and land.
  • Automatic Cessation of Office: By the 31st day, if no formal advice of removal is received by the President (Union/Delhi) or Governor (States), the concerned Minister shall automatically cease to hold office.
  • Special Provisions for Prime Minister and Chief Ministers: If the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister is detained for thirty consecutive days on serious charges, they must tender resignation by the 31st day.
    • Automatic Cessation: In case of failure to resign, they shall automatically cease to hold office from the 32nd day of their detention.
  • Reappointment Clause: The Bill explicitly allows for the reappointment of a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister who has resigned or been removed under these provisions, after their release from custody, subject to the discretion of the appointing authority (President/Governor).
  • Extension to Union Territories: Through amendments to the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 and the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, these provisions are extended to cover all Union Territories as well.

Need for the 130th Amendment Bill, 2025

  • Rising Criminalisation of Politics: With over 40% of sitting MPs facing criminal cases, the absence of clear provisions for temporary disqualification of detained Ministers weakens public faith in governance.
  • Ethical Governance Imperative: Ministers in prolonged custody compromise the principle of probity in public life, undermining the credibility of Cabinet decisions.
  • Public Accountability: Current mechanisms address disqualification only after conviction, leaving a governance vacuum when Ministers are in jail pending trial.
  • Institutional Stability: The Bill seeks to provide a clear constitutional basis for removal, preventing misuse of discretionary powers by the President or Governors.

PWOnlyIAS Extra Edge:

Constituent Assembly’s Vision

  • K. T. Shah’s Proposal: He suggested barring individuals convicted of offences involving bribery, corruption, or moral turpitude from being appointed as Ministers. His emphasis was on creating a constitutionally mandated safeguard against unethical governance.
  • B. R. Ambedkar’s Stand: While recognising the good intentions behind the proposal, Ambedkar cautioned that the Constitution should not micromanage ministerial qualifications, as excessive rigidity could make governance impractical.
    • Reliance on Democratic Checks: He argued that the “good sense” of the Prime Minister, the Legislature, and ultimately the people should act as the safeguard against unethical appointments.
  • Democracy and the ‘Impossible Task’:
    • Warning Against Rigid Rules: Ambedkar stressed that rigid disqualification provisions might be circumvented or misused, thereby weakening the spirit of democracy.
    • Ensuring Purity of Public Life: He acknowledged that democracy requires society to shoulder “impossible tasks”, and among the greatest of these is ensuring purity in public life.

Political and Legal Context of the 130th Amendment Bill

  • Judicial Observations and Constitutional Gap:
    • Supreme Court in Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013): Held that legislators convicted of serious offences stand immediately disqualified, but remained silent on Ministers in custody without conviction, leaving a constitutional vacuum.
    • Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): Emphasised transparency in electoral politics and warned against criminalisation of politics, but left the scope of disqualification to be determined by Parliament.
    • Constitutional Ambiguity: While Ministers technically hold office “during the pleasure” of the President or Governor, the aid and advice clause restricts unilateral removal. This makes the situation unclear when a Minister faces prolonged detention without conviction.
  • Overlap with Existing Legal Framework: Under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, an MP/MLA is disqualified only if convicted and sentenced to at least 2 years of imprisonment (Section 8).
    • The Bill lowers this bar by enforcing disqualification at the stage of detention, creating possible conflict with the RPA and judicial precedents.
    • Present Practice: Removal of a detained Minister depends solely on political discretion of the executive, with no binding constitutional mandate.
  • Political Backdrop and Recent Controversies: 
    • High-Profile Detentions:
      • Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal (accused in the Delhi Liquor Policy ‘Scam’)
      • Former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji (accused in TN Cash-for-Jobs scam)
      • Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren (accused in a land ‘scam’)
      • Former West Bengal Education Minister Partha Chhatterjee (accused in WB recruitment scam), etc.
    • These episodes exposed the absence of a codified mechanism for suspension or removal of Ministers under detention.
  • Criminalisation of Politics as a Driving Force:
    • ADR Data (2024): Over 40% of sitting MPs face criminal charges, some of them grave offences.
    • Public Concern: Growing demand for reforms to curb misuse of public office by individuals facing serious criminal investigations.
    • The Bill positions itself as a systemic response to restore credibility in governance.

Significance of the Bill

  • Strengthens Constitutional Morality: Upholds the dignity and ethical standards expected of public office.
  • Public Trust in Governance: Ensures that the executive is free from individuals facing serious criminal proceedings.
  • Institutional Clarity: Removes constitutional vagueness around the doctrine of “pleasure” versus “aid and advice.”
  • Uniform Applicability: Brings Union, State, and UT governments under the same rule of accountability.

Potential Challenges of the Bill

  • Presumption of Innocence: The Bill allows automatic removal after 30 days of detention, even without conviction. 
    • This conflicts with the constitutional principle that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and goes beyond the Representation of People Act, 1951, which disqualifies legislators only after conviction with a minimum two-year sentence.
  • Conflict with Existing Legal Framework: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) already provides disqualification if an MP/MLA is convicted and sentenced to at least 2 years’ imprisonment (Section 8).
    • Additionally, specific offences under corruption, electoral malpractice, and heinous crimes already attract disqualification upon conviction.
    • By introducing disqualification at the stage of detention, the Bill creates a parallel mechanism, potentially conflicting with RPA and inviting judicial scrutiny.
  • Political Misuse: The provision could be weaponised by ruling parties, using investigative agencies to detain opposition leaders long enough to trigger disqualification. This raises fears of politically motivated arrests being used to destabilise rival governments.
  • Federalism Concerns: By allowing Governors to enforce removal of Chief Ministers, the Bill may strain Centre–State relations, especially in politically sensitive states. It risks being seen as a tool for central overreach into elected state governments.
  • Judicial Scrutiny: The Bill is likely to face challenges before the Supreme Court under the basic structure doctrine, as it may undermine democracy and separation of powers. It could also violate natural justice, since removal occurs without trial or defence.
  • Practical Governance Issues: Since the Bill permits reappointment after release, leaders could be removed and reinstated repeatedly, leading to political instability, policy discontinuity, and frequent Cabinet reshuffles, thereby weakening governance efficiency.

Related Global Initiatives:

  • United Kingdom: Requires ministers to resign if charged with a serious criminal offense.
  • United States: No direct constitutional bar on indicted legislators or officials, but Departmental Codes of Conduct and party pressure often force resignation.
  • South Africa: A public representative loses membership of Parliament if convicted and sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment without option of fine.
  • Canada: Legislators must resign if convicted of an indictable offence, or if imprisoned for more than 2 years.
  • Australia: Disqualifies MPs convicted of offences punishable by 1+ year imprisonment.

Way Forward

  • Safeguards Against Misuse: Independent judicial oversight or Parliamentary committees could review detentions before automatic removal.
  • Time-Bound Trials: Fast-track courts for cases involving Ministers to prevent prolonged pre-trial detention.
  • Strengthening Political Accountability: Political parties must adopt internal reforms to deny tickets to candidates with serious charges.
  • Cooperative Federalism: Clear consultation mechanisms between Centre and States to prevent erosion of autonomy.

Conclusion

The 130th Amendment Bill, 2025, is a bold step to curb criminalisation of politics and uphold constitutional morality, but its success will depend on preventing misuse, balancing federalism, and embedding adequate judicial safeguards to ensure fairness in governance.

Read More About Criminalisation In Indian Politics

Need help preparing for UPSC or State PSCs?

Connect with our experts to get free counselling & start preparing

Aiming for UPSC?

Download Our App

      
Quick Revise Now !
AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD SOON
UDAAN PRELIMS WALLAH
Comprehensive coverage with a concise format
Integration of PYQ within the booklet
Designed as per recent trends of Prelims questions
हिंदी में भी उपलब्ध
Quick Revise Now !
UDAAN PRELIMS WALLAH
Comprehensive coverage with a concise format
Integration of PYQ within the booklet
Designed as per recent trends of Prelims questions
हिंदी में भी उपलब्ध

<div class="new-fform">






    </div>

    Subscribe our Newsletter
    Sign up now for our exclusive newsletter and be the first to know about our latest Initiatives, Quality Content, and much more.
    *Promise! We won't spam you.
    Yes! I want to Subscribe.