Bringing Ministers Within the Law: The Landmark 130th Amendment and Its Implications

Introduction

On August 20, 2025, Union Home and Cooperation Minister Mr. Amit Shah introduced three significant legislative proposals in the Lok Sabha i.e. the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, the Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

Collectively, these Bills seek to reinforce the principles of constitutional morality and political accountability, particularly addressing the long-standing issue of criminalization in politics. Against the backdrop of growing public concern about ministers and chief ministers continuing to hold office despite facing criminal charges or judicial custody, the proposed 130th Amendment aims to clarify and strengthen the ethical framework governing India’s political executive.

Objectives and Background

The primary objective of the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025 is to ensure that individuals occupying high constitutional offices including the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers cannot exercise executive power while in judicial custody.

This initiative stems from an evolving political reality that the framers of the Constitution may not have anticipated: leaders facing criminal proceedings refusing to step down while incarcerated. The amendment thus seeks to restore integrity, transparency, and public confidence in governance by establishing a clear disqualification mechanism when an officeholder is detained for serious offences.

Mr. Amit Shah, while presenting the Bill, described it as an effort to “re-establish ethical standards in governance” and to ensure that “no leader governs from behind bars.” The intent, according to the government, is to align executive accountability with the rule of law an essential pillar of any democracy.

Key Provisions of the 130th Amendment Bill

The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 proposes the following key provisions:

1. Automatic Disqualification After 30 Days of Custody: If the Prime Minister, a Chief Minister, or a Minister (Union or State) is arrested and remains in custody for 30 consecutive days for an offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more, they must either resign voluntarily or face automatic removal from office on the 31st day.
2. Right to Seek Bail Within 30 Days:  The concerned individual retains the right to apply for bail during this period. Upon release, they may resume office if not otherwise disqualified.
3. Mechanism for Removal
4. Union Ministers (other than the Prime Minister) can be removed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.
5. State Ministers (other than the Chief Minister) may be removed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister.
6. In the case of the Prime Minister or Chief Ministers, removal is automatic after 30 days of continuous custody.
7. The accompanying Union Territories and Jammu & Kashmir Amendment Bills extend this framework uniformly across Union Territories, including Delhi and Puducherry.

Political Context and Reactions

The introduction of the Bill triggered intense parliamentary debate. The government has positioned the amendment as a demonstration of its zero-tolerance policy toward corruption, arguing that no individual however high their office should remain beyond the reach of law. Conversely, opposition leaders have raised concerns about the potential misuse of such a law for political vendetta, drawing parallels with periods in India’s history when executive powers were used to suppress dissent.

During the discussions, Mr. Amit Shah referenced historical instances such as the 39th Constitutional Amendment (1975) which shielded the then Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny to emphasize the importance of legal accountability even for the highest offices. He also noted that he himself had resigned before his arrest in a past case, underscoring the importance of personal integrity in public life.

Arguments Supporting the Amendment

Proponents of the 130th Amendment have welcomed it as a progressive step toward cleansing politics and upholding constitutional morality, a principle recognized by the Supreme Court in Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014).

Key arguments in support include:

• Ethical Governance: The Bill reinforces the expectation that those wielding executive power must maintain moral integrity and public trust.
• Bridging Legal Gaps: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 disqualifies legislators only after conviction. The new provision introduces accountability even during prolonged trials.
• Parity with Civil Service Rules: Similar to public servants who are suspended upon arrest, ministers too should be subject to comparable standards of probity.
• Strengthening Public Confidence: The amendment is expected to deter misuse of power by those under serious criminal investigation.

Concerns and Criticisms

Legal scholars and opposition parties, however, have expressed caution over the potential constitutional and procedural implications of the amendment. The primary concerns include:

• Presumption of Innocence: Critics argue that automatic removal upon arrest contradicts the fundamental principle that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
• Possibility of Misuse: Given the influence of central investigative agencies such as the CBI and ED, the amendment could, if unchecked, lead to politically motivated arrests aimed at destabilizing governments.
• Lack of Procedural Safeguards: The Bill does not clearly define safeguards or remedies in the event of malicious or frivolous arrests, nor does it provide for reinstatement in case of wrongful detention.
• Unequal Treatment of Legislators and Ministers: Legislators face disqualification only after conviction under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Applying a stricter standard to ministers could create inconsistencies within the constitutional framework.

Judicial precedents such as Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), which clarified that disqualification arises only upon conviction, highlight the potential for conflict between existing jurisprudence and the new amendment.

Judicial and Constitutional Context

India’s judiciary has long grappled with the tension between individual rights and institutional integrity. While the courts have upheld the principle that disqualification should follow conviction, they have also emphasized the importance of maintaining public confidence in governance. The Election Commission of India has similarly recommended that the framing of charges for serious offences should trigger disqualification though this has yet to be enacted legislatively.

The 130th Amendment Bill thus represents an attempt to reconcile these competing values: the protection of due process and the imperative of clean governance. Its constitutional validity, if enacted, will likely be tested before the Supreme Court, where it will invite a nuanced interpretation of the balance between executive accountability and individual liberty.

Conclusion

The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a critical juncture in India’s ongoing effort to curb the criminalization of politics and restore public faith in democratic institutions. By extending the reach of the law to those at the apex of executive authority, it seeks to reaffirm the constitutional principle that no one is above the law. Yet, its long-term success will depend on the fairness of its implementation, the presence of institutional safeguards, and the judiciary’s interpretation of its compatibility with the fundamental rights of officeholders.

As the Bill undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, it offers Parliament an opportunity to craft a reform that upholds both accountability and justice striking a careful balance between the need for clean governance and the sanctity of due process in a constitutional democracy.