Answer

Introduction

The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, mandates resignation/removal of Ministers, Chief Ministers, and the Prime Minister if held in custody for 30+ days in crimes that carry a maximum punishment of 5 years or more of imprisonment. Rooted in India’s battle against political criminalisation, it echoes judicial concerns on ethical governance.

Potential Impact on Governance and Politics

• Strengthens Political Accountability: Enforces ethical governance by ensuring tainted leaders do not hold office.
• Restores Public Trust in Institutions : Reduces public cynicism over leaders continuing in power despite serious charges.
• Promotes Constitutional Morality: ensuring accountability and integrity in public office, reflecting the rule of law.
  Eg: Aligns with the Manoj Narula (2014) judgment and Supreme Court’s warning against appointing ministers with serious criminal charges.
• Deters Criminalisation of Politics: Creates a disincentive for criminals to enter politics for protection.
  Eg: According to 2024 ADR data ,  46% of MPs up from 43% in 2019 have criminal cases, eroding trust in democracy.
• Improves India’s Global Image: Signals commitment to rule of law, boosting investor and diplomatic confidence.
  Eg: Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2024 ranks India 96/180; anti-corruption reforms could improve ranking.

Challenges

• Violates Presumption of Innocence (Art. 21): Equates arrest with guilt, undermining due process.
  Eg: In Lily Thomas case , SC ruled that legislators can be disqualified only upon conviction, not merely on arrest or framing of charges.
• Risk of Political Misuse: Arrests could be weaponised to topple governments.
• Destabilises Governance: Frequent resignations could lead to administrative paralysis.
• Federal Principles and Separation of Powers at Risk: The Bill risks empowering investigative agencies to bypass the judiciary, raising concerns of centralised power and weakened federal norms.

Way Forward

• Link Removal to Framing of Charges by Court: Removal should be linked to the framing of charges by a competent court to ensure judicial scrutiny.
  Eg: The Law Commission’s 244th Report (2014) recommended disqualifying politicians once charges are framed especially for offences punishable with five years or more.
• Apply to Serious Offences Only (Moral Turpitude, Corruption): The provision should apply exclusively to serious offences to prevent misuse for minor allegations.
  Eg: The Representation of People Act, 1951 (Section 8) already disqualifies legislators upon conviction of serious offences like corruption or moral turpitude.
• Independent Tribunal Review: An impartial tribunal should decide on disqualification to ensure neutrality and fairness.
  Eg: The Election Commission’s role in adjudicating disqualifications under the RPA demonstrates how neutrality can be institutionalised.
• Interim Suspension Instead of Automatic Removal: Public representatives should face interim suspension rather than automatic removal to maintain governance continuity while ensuring accountability.
• Time-bound Trials for Public Representatives: Legal proceedings against public representatives should be concluded within a fixed time-frame to prevent prolonged legal uncertainty and political misuse.
  Eg: The Supreme Court’s 2014 directive mandated expedited trials for lawmakers, recommending completion within one year of framing of charges. 

Conclusion

In democracy, power without integrity corrodes, but integrity without fairness endangers liberty. The 130th Amendment Bill, 2025, is a bold step towards clean politics, but unchecked, it risks political vendetta and constitutional overreach. A judicially filtered, uniform, and impartial mechanism is essential to ensure integrity without sacrificing fairness.

DOWNLOAD PDF