The Lok Sabha descended into chaos on Tuesday when Union Home Minister Amit Shah tabled the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill. The draft legislation proposes that the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, or ministers facing imprisonment for over 30 days in cases involving offences punishable with a minimum five-year sentence could be removed from office. Predictably, the Opposition described the proposal as “unconstitutional” and “draconian,” accusing the ruling BJP of plotting to weaponise central agencies against non-BJP leaders. According to Opposition members, the measure would allow the Centre to target state governments, incarcerate rival leaders, and destabilise administrations. The government, however, insisted that the Bill was designed to restore “constitutional morality” and set higher ethical standards in politics.
The Bill seeks amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution. It lays down that a minister, Chief Minister, or the Prime Minister who spends more than 30 days in custody for alleged crimes carrying a potential jail term of at least five years will automatically lose office. Importantly, this removal would not require conviction—mere detention would suffice. However, the proposed law clarifies that after release, the person can be reappointed. The “statement of objects and reasons” stresses that ministers are expected to act beyond suspicion, and those arrested on serious criminal charges undermine the public trust vested in them. At present, there is no constitutional provision that mandates removal in such circumstances.
The introduction of the Bill triggered uproar in the House. Opposition MPs shouted slogans, tore papers, and accused the government of attempting to create a “police state.” Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra dismissed the Bill as “a draconian measure dressed up as an anti-corruption move,” while Trinamool Congress’s Abhishek Banerjee claimed it was intended to secure “power and control without accountability.” The Shiv Sena (UBT) alleged it was a step toward dictatorship, and AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi called it “the final nail in the coffin of elected governments.”
The timing of the Bill’s introduction raised eyebrows, as it came on the penultimate day of the Monsoon Session. The government had already listed it for referral to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), signalling it was not rushing to enact it immediately. The Speaker has since confirmed that a JPC with 21 Lok Sabha members and 10 Rajya Sabha members will review the legislation. The debate turned personal when Congress MP KC Venugopal referenced Amit Shah’s arrest in 2010 during his tenure as Gujarat’s Home Minister. Shah retorted that he had resigned back then, unlike today’s leaders who, he said, “continue in office shamelessly even after arrest.”
The hurdles for the Bill are steep. A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. In the Lok Sabha, that translates to 361 votes out of 542. With 293 members, the NDA falls short even with potential support from independents and smaller parties. The Rajya Sabha numbers are no better—160 votes are needed, while the NDA controls only 132. Even if Parliament were to pass the Bill, it would still need ratification by at least half of India’s states and Union Territories since it affects the federal framework. Moreover, legal experts suggest it could face a Supreme Court challenge for violating the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and undermining the basic structure of the Constitution.
Analysts believe the BJP knows the Bill is unlikely to clear Parliament. Instead, the move appears aimed at shaping public perception. By projecting the law as a tool to curb corruption, the government could accuse the Opposition of resisting transparency and defending tainted leaders. The controversy also dovetails with the Opposition’s ongoing campaign on alleged voter fraud in Bihar, allowing the BJP to shift focus and paint its rivals as obstructionists to clean governance. Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra has already alleged the Bill was a “distraction tactic” from what the Opposition calls “vote theft.”
Government sources clarified that the proposal stemmed from the arrest of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who refused to resign while in custody. Since the Constitution is silent on whether a minister should step down in such situations, the Centre argued that clarity was needed. Sources also emphasised that “arrests follow legal procedure” and any accused person can approach the courts for relief, rejecting charges of misuse. Officials admitted that passage of the Bill was secondary to sparking a debate on ethics in politics. “Even if it does not become law, the aim is to expose the Opposition,” one source said. “If they oppose it, the message will be clear: they are comfortable with ministers running ministries from jail.”