New Delhi 21 August 2025 — In the Parliament’s elegant build-up, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, one of the most controversial bills, was introduced by the Union Home Minister, Ram Nath Kovind. It targets the removal of the PM, Chief Ministers, or ministers if they languish in judicial custody without conviction for over 30 days. This bill has generated a storm of debate-from one extreme considered a reform necessary to uphold the integrity of public office to the other side decrying it as a draconian, politically motivated instrument.

What Does the Bill Propose?

This bill moves an amendment in Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Indian Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill with the added provision that any PM or CM or any other minister who is detained for offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of five years or more for a period of 30 consecutive days shall be deemed to have been removed from his office notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill or any law for the time being in force and also without any conviction. They can, however, be reappointed once released. The government has stated that the amendment is to uplift the moral standards and dignity and to restore people’s faith in political leadership.

The Background of the Amendment

Currently, elected officials can continue to hold office until they get convicted, sometimes allowing long delays and misuse of power.-The government contends that this reform does the same with ministers as is now done for civil servants, who are suspended as soon as they are arrested, so as to cut down the criminalisation of politics and remove leaders who may affect constitutional morality.

Opposition’s Outcry: Is It Political Targeting or Evenermining Democracy?

Such a bill set off an uproar and protest in the Lok Sabha accompanied by paper tearing and furious altercations. According to members of the opposition such as Congress, Trinamool, Shiv Sena (UBT), etc., the law is “draconian,” “unconstitutional,” and an infringement on democratic rights, fearing it could be wielded to depose non-BJP Chief Ministers via politically motivated arrests.

Priyanka Gandhi Vadra condemned the bill, calling it an injustice that was falsely presented as an anti-corruption measure. Abhishek Banerjee stated it was a way to hold power without account; the Lok Sabha member said that the bill affected the balance of power, destroyed federalism, and set India on the road to a “police state.” 

Other worries included interference with the separation of powers, which would turn any action into one taken by quasi-judicial central agencies supported by this Bill. Some opposition leaders gave examples of high-profile cases like that of Arvind Kejriwal, Hemant Soren, and V. Senthil Balaji, saying that the display would cause retroactive punishment of political dissent.

Outside the Parliament: Support Is Building

A strange twist came from political strategist Prashant Kishor proclaiming his endorsement for the bill, stating that such a law stops governance from jail and fixes unintended loopholes created by the framers of the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill. He called it a necessary step against corruption in politics.

For any Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill to become law, it has to pass with a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and then receive presidential assent. The ruling NDA has 293 seats in the Lok Sabha at present-well short of the 361 required. With sizeable opposition resistance, the bill does not seem to have a chance in its present form. 

To make matters worse, the bill was immediately sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), consisting Constitution (130th Amendment) Billof 21 Lok Sabha members and 10 Rajya Sabha members, for consideration-hence delaying consideration. With the Monsoon session drawing near an end, the stage is now set for spending yet more time in review.

Broader Implications: Ethics Versus Democratic Safeguards

Supporters hold that it plugs a glaring gap of the accountability, putting ethics as the central focus and attempting to put political offices on civil service footings.

Opponents feel that it may erode due processes, be misused by agencies at the Centre, be used to throttle States run by opposition parties, and therefore begin a dangerous shift in the Centres’ power assumptions.

The timing, coming before the adjournment sine die of the Parliament, seems intriguing and could perhaps indicate optics at the expense of immediate action.

The JPC review could introduce changes such as requiring the conviction of the person for removal, imposition of additional time for the process to complete, or in-built safeguards to prevent misuse, especially concerning the central investigative agencies.

If diluted, the bill may garner wider acceptance; if maintained, it stands a good chance of being voted down in Parliament.

The judicial scrutiny may follow any passage with courts, as likely, articulating concerns as to whether it is consistent with fundamental rights and legal due process.

Conclusion

The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill is a high-stakes legislative gambit. It pits the imperative of ethical governance against concerns over democratic erosion and over-centralized power. As India watches, Parliament’s handling of this amendment—and potential revisions—will signal more than just legal changes; it may define the nation’s approach to political integrity and institutional balance.

Also Read : Netflix or Amazon Prime: Which One Is Better in 2025?

Frequently Asked Questions