Moral integrity in the political class is a paradox that India has continually struggled with. While, on the one hand, the electorate demands moral rectitude in the political class, there has, on the other, been a pervading spectre of criminality prevailing in the political class.

• The proposed Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 aims to promote cleaner politics, however, it raises significant political and constitutional concerns.

The Problem of Criminalization in Politics

• In the 2009 Lok Sabha Elections, 30% of Members of Parliament (MPs) faced criminal cases.
  • This figure increased to 34% in 2014. 
  • By 2019, 43% of MPs had criminal cases against them.
  • The trend continued in the 2024 elections, with 46% of MPs having declared criminal cases.
  • This means almost half of the MPs face criminal charges. Often, leaders remain in their positions even when jailed, attempting to govern from custody, which negatively impacts governance.

Provisions of the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill

• The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill aims to tackle this issue directly. 
• It stipulates that if any Minister, Prime Minister (PM), or Chief Minister (CM) is arrested for a crime with a maximum punishment of more than 5 years and remains in police or judicial custody for a continuous period of 30 days, they must resign from their post.
• The bill draws its authority from three key articles of the Constitution:
  • Article 75: Pertains to Union Ministers.
  • Article 164: Relates to State Ministers.
  • Article 239A: Applies to Ministers in Delhi.
• While Articles 75(1), 164(1) and 239AA(5) mandate that Ministers shall hold office at the pleasure of the President of India (or Governor), 
  • This “pleasure” has been judicially interpreted within the bounds of constitutional morality and legal propriety, as in cases such as Shamsher Singh and Anr. vs State Of Punjab and Nabam Rebia And Etc. Etc. vs Deputy Speaker And Ors.

Judicial Pronouncements

•  S.R. Bommai vs Union of India: The Supreme Court of India  underscored the role of constitutional morality as a guiding principle, thus pronouncing that democratic institutions must be nurtured through integrity and accountability. 
• Manoj Narula vs Union of India, the Court directly addressed the ethical dimension of ministerial appointments, warning that individuals with serious criminal charges should not be entrusted with executive power.

Challenges and Concerns with the Bill

• Undermining Presumption of Innocence: Indian law upholds the principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. 
  • The Representation of the People Act (RPA) 1951, specifically Section 8, Clause 3, states that an MP or MLA loses membership only upon conviction. 
  • The Supreme Court, in the Lily Thomas case, reinforced this by ruling that disqualification occurs immediately upon conviction for two or more years of imprisonment. 
  • The new bill contradicts this by proposing disqualification merely for 30 days of detention, even without conviction.
• Potential for Political Misuse: The central government could potentially misuse agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to detain an Opposition CM for 30 days before elections, forcing their resignation and weakening their party’s chances. 
  • Obtaining bail, especially in cases like those under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), can be difficult.
• “Revolving Door” Phenomenon and Instability: The bill could lead to instability.
  • Imagine a CM is arrested and forced to resign after 30 days. If they secure bail just five days later, they could potentially return to their position. 
  • Such a scenario would create significant instability in the state.
• Inconsistency in Standards for Ministers and Legislators: The Bill mandates resignation of Ministers on mere detention, while legislators face disqualification only upon conviction under the Representation of the People Act. 

Recommendations for Improvement

• Link Disqualification to Judicial Action: Disqualification should be based on judicial action, such as when charges are framed in court and a judge determines sufficient preliminary evidence, rather than solely on an arrest, which can be politically influenced.
• Suspension of Ministers: Instead of forcing resignation, Ministers should be suspended from their duties. 
  • This would strip them of their powers while in custody without permanently removing them from office until a judicial verdict is reached.
• Narrowing the Scope of Offence: The bill broadly applies to crimes with a maximum punishment of five years or more. This scope should be narrowed down significantly to specific, grave offences such as rape or murder, to prevent its misuse for minor charges.

Current Status

• The bill has been referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). 
• The JPC is responsible for thoroughly examining its intricacies, consulting all stakeholders, and proposing necessary amendments before the bill proceeds further in Parliament. 

Conclusion

Unless the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) carefully recalibrates to incorporate due process and institutional checks, it could transmute constitutional safeguards into instruments of political exclusion, testing the delicate balance of India’s democratic experiment. For, in the long run, power without integrity corrodes democracy, and integrity without fairness endangers it.

DOWNLOAD PDF