The 130th Amendment Bill

11.09.2025

The 130th Amendment Bill

Context
The 130th Amendment Bill mandates automatic removal of Ministers, including PM/CMs, after 30 days’ custody for serious offences, raising debates on accountability, constitutional overreach, due process, and political misuse risks.

Key Features of the 130th Amendment Bill

• Ministers at the Central and State levels, including the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Union/State Ministers, will be removed automatically after being in custody continuously for 30 days.
• The provisions apply uniformly across the Centre, States, Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu & Kashmir.
• Removal procedure:
  • Union Ministers can be removed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.
  • State Ministers can be removed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister.
  • Delhi Ministers can be removed by the President on the advice of the Chief Minister.
• The Prime Minister and Chief Ministers themselves must resign by the 31st day of continuous custody or will be deemed to have ceased holding office.
• This does not impose permanent disqualification; reappointment is allowed after release from custody.

Grounds for Removal

• Applies only to serious offences punishable with imprisonment of five years or more.
• Continuous detention for 30 days triggers removal.

Constitutional and Legal Concerns

• Basic Structure Doctrine: The amendment could affect the parliamentary system and rule of law principles as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
• Conflict with Existing Laws: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 only disqualifies elected officials post-conviction, not during custody or arrest.
• Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): Equating mere custody with guilt undermines fair trial rights as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi (1978) and A.R. Antulay (1988).
• Cabinet Responsibility: Concentrating removal decision-making power on the PM/CM undermines the collective responsibility principle (S.R. Bommai, 1994).
• Potential for Political Abuse: Agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) could be misused, since custody often extends beyond 30 days under strict bail laws.

Impacts

• Risk of governance instability due to frequent removal of Ministers.
• Political opponents may be jailed strategically to force removals without reaching court verdicts.
• The public's electoral choices may be undermined.
• Increased burden on courts through challenges to removals.
• Voluntary political accountability may decline if replaced by automatic legal compulsion.

Way Forward

• Link ministerial removal to formal framing of charges rather than mere custody.
• Provide for judicial review of removal orders within a strict timeframe.
• Ensure that removal decisions are made collectively by the Cabinet rather than unilaterally by the PM or CM.
• Introduce independent oversight, such as by a Lokpal or Ethics Commission, to prevent political vendetta.
• Encourage the tradition of voluntary resignations to uphold moral politics, inspired by examples like Lal Bahadur Shastri's resignation in 1956.

Conclusion
The 130th Amendment Bill seeks to strengthen political accountability by disallowing Ministers facing serious charges to remain in power. However, treating custody as equivalent to guilt could lead to executive misuse, violate constitutional rights, and destabilize governance. Balanced reforms with judicial safeguards and respect for due process are critical to safeguard both accountability and democratic values.