| UPSC Relevance GS-II (Polity): Constitutional amendments; separation of powers; criminalisation of politics; Articles 75/164/239AA.GS-IV (Ethics): Probity in governance, moral responsibility of public office. |
Why in News?
On August 20, 2025, the government introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha.
The Bill proposes that if a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister is in custody for more than 30 consecutive days in a criminal case punishable with five years or more of imprisonment, they must either:
● Resign immediately, or
● Face automatic removal from office.
The Bill has been referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for scrutiny. While it seeks to address the deepening criminalisation of politics, it has also triggered sharp debates over its constitutionality, fairness, and political implications.
Background
India has long faced a paradox: a political class often tainted by criminal charges yet entrusted with governance.
According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR):
● In the 2024 General Election, 46% of winning MPs (251 out of 543) declared criminal cases.
● This marks a steep rise from 30% in 2009, showing a 55% increase in 15 years.
Such figures reflect a serious erosion of public trust in democratic institutions. Citizens demand integrity from leaders, yet many elected representatives face allegations of corruption, extortion, or serious crimes.
Against this backdrop, the Bill appears as a bold step to cleanse political offices, ensuring that no person in jail continues to run ministries.
Constitutional Basis of the Bill
The proposed amendment builds on Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, which govern the appointment and tenure of Ministers:
● Article 75 (Union) → Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President.
● Article 164 (States) → Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.
● Article 239AA (Delhi) → Similar provisions apply to Delhi’s Council of Ministers.
Traditionally, the “pleasure” doctrine has been interpreted within the limits of constitutional morality and judicial oversight. In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab and Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker, the Supreme Court emphasised that such powers must not be used arbitrarily.
👉 The Bill inserts new provisions (Clause 5A, 4A, etc.), making detention beyond 30 days a constitutional trigger for resignation or removal. This shifts the balance from executive discretion to automatic constitutional compulsion.
Significance / Importance of the Bill
1. Ethical message to society → Reinforces the principle that integrity is non-negotiable in high offices. Leaders in jail should not run ministries.
2. Restoring public trust → Citizens often feel politicians escape accountability. This Bill sends a strong message that rules apply equally.
3. Higher standards for the executive → Ministers have greater responsibility than MPs/MLAs; hence stricter rules are justified.
4. Pressure on political parties → Parties may avoid fielding candidates with criminal backgrounds, improving overall candidate quality.
5. Step in constitutional development → Gives legislative shape to judicial reminders on political morality.
6. Smoother administration → Prevents controversies over jailed ministers, ensuring policy continuity and governance stability.
👉 Yet, despite these merits, the Bill raises complex constitutional questions that cannot be ignored.
Key Issues and Concerns
1. Presumption of Innocence
- A core principle of criminal law is that an accused remains innocent until proven guilty.
- Under this Bill, even detention without conviction can lead to a minister’s removal.
- This risks violating Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty), as it amounts to punishment before proof of guilt.
2. Inconsistency Between Legislators and Ministers
- MPs and MLAs are disqualified only after conviction under the Representation of the People Act (RPA).
- But here, ministers would be removed merely on detention.
- This unequal standard raises fairness and consistency concerns in constitutional design.
3. Scope for Political Misuse
- The Bill provides two routes for removal:
a) On the advice of the Prime Minister/Chief Minister, or
b) Automatic removal if custody extends beyond 30 days. - This creates space for partisan misuse — allies could be shielded temporarily while rivals are swiftly removed through arrests.
4. The “Revolving Door” Problem
- A minister forced to resign after 30 days in jail can be reappointed immediately after securing bail.
- This cycle of resignation → bail → reinstatement may destabilise governance and politicise the legal process.
5. Overbroad Scope of Offences
- The Bill applies to any offence with punishment of 5 years or more, not just corruption or abuse of office.
- This means even relatively less serious or unrelated offences could trigger removal, diluting the reform’s moral purpose.
6. Judicial Burden and Uncertainty
- Frequent legal challenges to arrests, detentions, and disqualifications are likely.
- This could burden the judiciary and create long periods of uncertainty in governance while cases drag on.
Judicial Pronouncements on Criminalisation of Politics
The Supreme Court has repeatedly highlighted the ethical dimension of political office:
● S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) → Stressed constitutional morality and accountability.
● Manoj Narula vs Union of India (2014) → Suggested that those with serious criminal charges should not be Ministers, but left the discretion to PM/CM.
● Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013) → Disqualified lawmakers immediately upon conviction, scrapping the earlier 3-month appeal buffer.
👉 Courts have nudged politics toward integrity, but avoided mandating automatic removal upon arrest. The Bill legislates in this grey zone.
The Need for a More Nuanced Model
While the Bill addresses a genuine problem, its sweeping approach risks undermining democratic safeguards. Alternative models suggested include:
1. Link Removal to Framing of Charges
○ Instead of arrest, removal should be triggered after judicial scrutiny at charge-framing to prevent misuse.
2. Independent Review Mechanism
○ A tribunal or judicial panel could review detention cases before removal, limiting executive misuse.
3. Suspension Instead of Removal
○ Ministers could be suspended from duties during trial, rather than outright removal, to ensure governance stability.
4. Limit to Serious Crimes
○ Apply the rule only to crimes involving corruption, moral turpitude, or grave offences, not all offences with 5+ years’ punishment.
Way Forward
The JPC now has the responsibility to refine the Bill. Any reform must balance two imperatives:
● Integrity in governance → ensuring politics is free from criminal taint.
● Constitutional fairness → safeguarding rights and preventing misuse.
India’s democracy requires reforms that go beyond symbolism and ensure both clean politics and due process.
Conclusion
The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025 is a bold attempt to check the criminalisation of politics. It is likely to be welcomed by citizens as a moral corrective. Yet, in its present form, it risks undermining fairness by punishing individuals before guilt is established and by enabling political misuse of detention.
In the long run, integrity and fairness must go hand in hand. Integrity without fairness creates authoritarianism, while fairness without integrity fosters corruption. Indian democracy’s strength lies in balancing both.
This Bill, therefore, must not only cleanse politics but also uphold constitutional values — ensuring that in the quest for clean governance, the foundations of justice are not shaken.
Upsc prelims practice questions-
Q1. With reference to the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, consider the following statements:
1. The Bill mandates that if a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister is in custody for more than 30 consecutive days in a case punishable with five years or more of imprisonment, they must resign or face automatic removal.
2. The Bill directly amends Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution to redefine the “pleasure of the President/Governor” doctrine.
3. The Bill ensures that legislators (MPs/MLAs) will also be disqualified upon arrest, even before conviction.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (b) 1 and 2 only
Explanation:
● Statement 1 is correct → The Bill introduces removal/resignation after 30 days of custody.
● Statement 2 is correct → It adds provisions under Articles 75, 164, and 239AA.
● Statement 3 is incorrect → MPs/MLAs continue to be disqualified only upon conviction under the Representation of the People Act, not mere arrest.
Q2. Consider the following judicial pronouncements related to criminalisation of politics in India:
1. S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) → Emphasised constitutional morality and accountability in governance.
2. Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013) → Held that lawmakers stand disqualified immediately upon conviction, without the earlier three-month buffer.
3. Manoj Narula vs Union of India (2014) → Mandated that persons facing criminal charges cannot be appointed as Ministers.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a) 1 and 2 only
Explanation:
● Statement 1 is correct → S.R. Bommai case highlighted constitutional morality.
● Statement 2 is correct → Lily Thomas case struck down the 3-month grace period.
● Statement 3 is incorrect → Manoj Narula observed that persons with criminal charges ideally should not be Ministers, but left the decision to PM/CM discretion; it was not mandatory.
Upsc mains practice question-
Mains Question (GS-II – Polity & Governance)
Q. The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 seeks to address the growing criminalisation of politics by mandating resignation or removal of Ministers detained beyond 30 days. Critically examine whether the Bill successfully balances the ideals of integrity in governance with the principles of constitutional fairness. (250 words)
SOURCE- THE HINDU
Found this helpful?
Bookmark for revision, Practice the mains question, and
Share with fellow aspirants! THANK YOU