Answer

Introduction

The 130th Constitution Amendment Bill proposes that ministers must resign if detained for 30 days, aiming to uphold political integrity. While it seeks accountability, the provision raises critical questions on the presumption of innocence and separation of powers, warranting a careful evaluation of its impact.

Body

Positive Impacts on Constitutional Principles

• Enhancement Of Accountability And Integrity: It signals zero tolerance for ministers who remain in custody for extended periods, reinforcing public trust in governance.
• Complement To Existing Safeguards: The amendment works alongside the Representation of the People Act, giving an additional check before conviction.
  Eg: Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab (1955) upheld the principle of  collective responsibility recognizing legislative oversight of ministers.
• Prevention Of “Governance From Jail”: It avoids situations where detained ministers try to run affairs from prison, ensuring executive functioning isn’t hampered.
• Level Playing Field For All Parties: The rule applies equally to all ministers, including those from the ruling party, thus reducing perceptions of selective immunity.
  Eg: Manoj Narula v Union of India (2014) ensured uniform application of disqualification rules for all ministers.
• Promotion Of Constitutional Morality: By embedding ethical expectations into law, it seeks to align political office with higher standards of probity.
  

Negative Impacts on Constitutional Principles

• Erosion of Presumption of Innocence: Removal merely on detention (even without trial or conviction) treats accusation as guilt, undermining the tenet of innocence until proven guilty.
• Excessive Intrusion into Political Judgment: Automatic removal of ministers turns political discretion over tenure and removal into a legal compulsion.
• Threat to Separation of Powers: It empowers executive or investigative agencies to indirectly determine removal, effectively acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
  Eg: The SC in Vineet Narain v Union of India (1998) emphasized insulating investigative agencies from political control to maintain rule of law and separation of powers.
• Risk of Misuse and Political Targeting: Given that pre-trial detention can be manipulated, the amendment may be weaponised to unseat political opponents under a legal guise.
  Eg: S.R. Bommai v Union of India (1994) ruled that the strength of the House must be tested on the floor of the legislature to prevent political manipulation.
• Infringement on Federal Autonomy: At state level, national investigative actions could unilaterally remove state ministers, undermining state governments’ independence.
  Eg: S.R. Bommai v Union of India (1994) reinforced federalism as a part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

Way Forward

• Trigger removal post framing of charges or judicial scrutiny: This adds a safeguard beyond arrest, preserving presumption of innocence while ensuring accountability.
• Limit scope narrowly: Define “serious offences” clearly, and exclude preventive detention or political cases, to minimize overreach.
• Fast-track trials for ministers: Ensure prompt adjudication, so that detention does not linger indefinitely and unjust removal is avoided.
• Judicial oversight or appeal mechanism: Provide a recourse in courts to challenge removal, preserving separation of powers.
• Strengthen institutional checks on investigative agencies: Insulate agencies from political control thus ensure transparency and accountability so they aren’t misused for political ends.

Conclusion

The 130th Amendment aims to strengthen accountability, yet risks eroding the presumption of innocence and federal balance. As Dr. Ambedkar warned, not every ethical expectation should become constitutional law; careful safeguards and judicial oversight are vital to enhance governance without compromising core constitutional principles.

DOWNLOAD PDF