Why in News?

• The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 has been introduced

• It proposes automatic removal of Ministers (including the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers) if they are kept in custody for 30 consecutive days in cases involving serious crimes punishable with five years or more imprisonment

Key Features of the Bill

• Scope

• • Applies to:

    • Union Government (Central Ministers including Prime Minister)

    • State Governments (State Ministers including Chief Minister)

    • National Capital Territory of Delhi (Ministers including Chief Minister)

  • Extended to Union Territories of Puducherry and Jammu & Kashmir through separate bills

• Grounds for Removal

• • Serious Offence – If a Minister is accused of a crime that carries punishment of five years or more imprisonment

  • Custody Clause – Minister must be under arrest and detention for 30 consecutive days

  • Custody = legal confinement or detention ordered by a court; it is not the same as conviction

• Procedure for Removal

• • Union Ministers – Removed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister (by the 31st day)

  • State Ministers – Removed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister (by the 31st day)

  • Delhi Ministers – Removed by the President on the advice of the Delhi Chief Minister

  • Prime Minister/Chief Ministers themselves – Must resign by the 31st day, and if they do not, they automatically cease to hold office

• Reappointment

• • Removal is not a permanent disqualification

  • Removed Ministers can be re-appointed after being released from custody

Key Implications

• Positive Side

• • Aims to strengthen constitutional morality (acting with integrity and respect for the Constitution)

  • Promotes good governance and public trust by preventing Ministers with serious criminal charges from continuing in power

• Negative Side

• • Risk of political misuse since removal is based on custody, not conviction

  • May weaken democratic norms and principles

Constitutional and Legal Issues

• Basic Structure Violation

• • Basic Structure Doctrine: From Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) – Parliament cannot change fundamental features of the Constitution (democracy, rule of law, separation of powers)

  • This Bill may erode parliamentary democracy by transferring decision-making from courts and legislatures to executive discretion

• Departure from Judicial Precedent

• • Representation of the People Act, 1951: Disqualification only after conviction, not during trial or custody

  • A.R. Antulay Case (1988): Supreme Court struck down shortcuts that violated right to life and liberty under Article 21

• Weakening of Collegial Cabinet Principle

• • Collegiality = Council of Ministers works collectively and is responsible as a whole

  • Giving removal powers solely on advice of Prime Minister or Chief Minister makes Cabinet hostage to individual discretion

  • S.R. Bommai Case (1994): Reaffirmed collective responsibility of Cabinet as part of parliamentary system

• Misuse Risk through Investigative Agencies

• • Agencies like ED and CBI accused of targeting opposition leaders

  • Under laws like PMLA, bail is extremely difficult (Section 45 imposes strict bail conditions)

  • Leaders may remain in custody over 30 days without conviction, triggering automatic removal

• Dilution of Liberty and Due Process

• • Due Process = State must respect all rights owed to a person

  • Maneka Gandhi Case (1978): Liberty can only be curtailed by a law that is fair, just, and reasonable

  • A 30-day custody trigger is arbitrary and equates mere investigation with guilt

Comparative Perspective

• United Kingdom

• • No legal compulsion for resignation until conviction

  • Ministers usually resign due to political pressure or moral reasons (Profumo scandal, 1963)

• United States

• • Constitution is silent on ministerial removals

  • Resignations usually happen due to political pressure (Watergate scandal, 1974)

• South Africa

• • Ministers can only be removed after conviction or through impeachment

  • Keeps due process central to accountability

Potential Consequences of the Bill

• Governance Instability – Frequent removals may disrupt Cabinet stability and weaken policy continuity

• Political Weaponisation – Governments may misuse investigative agencies to target rivals and force removal

• Erosion of Public Mandate – Voters’ choice may be overturned without conviction, undermining representative democracy

• Judicial Burden – Courts may face a flood of petitions challenging removals, increasing pressure on judiciary

• Moral Standards Risk – Instead of improving accountability, partisan misuse could create cynicism about ethics in politics

Way Forward

• Link Removal to Judicial Milestones – Trigger only after charges are framed by a court, not mere custody

• Strengthen Judicial Oversight – High Courts should review removal orders within a short timeframe (for example, 7 days)

• Safeguard Collegiality – Removal should not depend only on Prime Minister or Chief Minister; collective Cabinet decision should be mandatory

• Ensure Political Neutrality – Create an independent body (Lokpal or Ethics Commission) to review such cases and reduce political vendetta

• Promote Voluntary Codes – Encourage Ministers to resign on moral grounds (as Lal Bahadur Shastri did in 1956 after a railway accident), instead of forced legal disqualification

Conclusion

• The Bill addresses a real concern – Ministers facing serious criminal charges damage governance and public trust

• But equating custody with guilt risks executive misuse, violation of due process, and weakening of democracy

• A balanced reform should combine accountability with judicial safeguards, protecting democracy while strengthening integrity in public life