Why in news?
The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 was introduced in Parliament. It proposes automatic removal of Prime Minister, Chief Ministers or Ministers who are detained in custody for more than 30 consecutive days in cases involving offences punishable with at least five years’ imprisonment.
Main provisions
- Who is covered: The Bill applies to Union Ministers, State Ministers and Ministers of Delhi, Puducherry and Jammu & Kashmir.
- Grounds for removal: A minister must be removed if he or she is under arrest and in custody for 30 days in a case where the maximum punishment is five years or more.
- Procedure: Union Ministers would be removed by the President on the Prime Minister’s advice, State Ministers by Governors on the Chief Minister’s advice, and Delhi Ministers by the President on the Chief Minister’s advice. If the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister themselves are detained, they must resign by the 31st day or automatically cease to hold office.
- Reappointment: Removal is not permanent; the minister can be re‑appointed after release from custody.
Concerns and debates
- Basic structure challenge: Critics argue that the Bill undermines parliamentary democracy by shifting power from Parliament and courts to the executive. The Kesavananda Bharati ruling of 1973 restricts Parliament from altering the Constitution’s basic structure, including the separation of powers.
- Departure from precedent: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 disqualifies elected representatives only upon conviction. The Bill seeks removal based on custody without trial, raising due‑process concerns highlighted in cases like A.R. Antulay (1988) and Maneka Gandhi (1978).
- Threat to cabinet collegiality: The proposal concentrates authority in the hands of the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, potentially undermining the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers affirmed in the S.R. Bommai case (1994).
- Risk of misuse: Investigative agencies could be weaponised to detain political opponents for prolonged periods, forcing their removal without a verdict. Custody often exceeds 30 days under stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Potential consequences
- Governance instability: Frequent removals could disrupt policy continuity and lead to administrative uncertainty.
- Erosion of voters’ mandate: Executive action could override electoral choices, weakening representative democracy.
- Judicial burden: Courts may be flooded with petitions challenging removal orders, further delaying justice.
Suggestions for a balanced approach
- Link removal to judicial milestones, such as framing of charges, instead of mere detention.
- Require an independent review by High Courts or an ethics commission to prevent political vendetta.
- Promote a culture of voluntary resignation on moral grounds, drawing inspiration from leaders like Lal Bahadur Shastri.
The Bill seeks to restore public trust by ensuring that ministers facing serious charges step aside. However, tying removal to due process and judicial safeguards is essential to uphold constitutional principles.