The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill mandates ministerial resignation after 30 days’ detention on charges with five years’ imprisonment, aiming to ensure governance integrity but raising issues of due process and separation of powers.

Government Rationale

• Moral Accountability: Ministers facing serious charges should not govern from custody.
• Public Trust: Detention of leaders erodes public faith and invites suspicion and frustration.
• Restoring Integrity: The bill seeks to prevent instances where leaders in custody refused to resign, sparking public outrage.

Constitutional Principles Undermined

• Chief Ministerial/Prime Ministerial Prerogative: Articles 75(1) and 164(1) allow leaders to select their team; the bill infringes on this prerogative.
• Collective Responsibility: The Council of Ministers is accountable to the Legislature, not investigative agencies; “they swim and sink together” (Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapoor vs State of Punjab, 1955).
• Ambedkar’s Warning: The Constitution relies on political accountability through elections rather than binding moral expectations.

Challenges With the Bill

• Violation of Due Process: The bill treats 30 days of detention as pre-trial punishment, undermining “innocent until proven guilty.”
• Undermining Separation of Powers: It grants investigative agencies power to decide ministerial positions, risking misuse as a political tool (Vineet Narain vs Union of India, 1998).
• Attack on Federalism: Central agencies could destabilize state governments by detaining CMs, bypassing democratic processes.
• Bypassing Assembly Confidence: In a parliamentary democracy, government survival is determined by the majority in the Assembly (S. R. Bommai Case, 1994); detention of a leader should not replace a floor test.

Way Forward

• Base Disqualification on Judicial Action: Ministers should face disqualification only after a court has formally framed charges in a serious case.
• Ensure Agency Impartiality: Strengthen the independence and impartiality of investigative agencies to prevent politically motivated arrests.

Conclusion

The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill’s intent to uphold integrity is commendable, but enforcing morality through law risks undermining due process and federal balance; true accountability must arise from political ethics and institutional responsibility, not coercive mandates.

DOWNLOAD PDF