Synopsis: Amit Shah’s 130th Constitution Amendment Bill seeks removal of PM, CM, and ministers jailed for 30 days, but passing it faces steep hurdles in Parliament and legal scrutiny.
Qalam Times News Network | New Delhi, August 22, 2025
Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, 20 August 2025.According to the bill, the Prime Minister, Chief Minister and other ministers who remain in custody for 30 consecutive days on charges of serious crimes can be removed from their post.
Main provisions of the bill
The bill states that any minister who remains in custody for 30 days on charges of an offence punishable with 5 years or more can be removed on the 31st day with the advice of the President. If the Chief Minister does not advise the President, the minister will automatically step down.
The special thing is that the minister can be reappointed after being released from jail. The purpose of this provision in the bill is to maintain political morality and good governance.
Opposition response
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi termed it a “medieval” move and said that the bill is against the basic principles of democracy. He said that “when the king did not like someone, he would dismiss him, now the same process is being tried to be applied to democratically elected governments.”
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi called the bill “unconstitutional” and said that it could establish a police state in the country. He warned that the bill is giving judicial powers to the executive and can pose a threat to the basic structure of democracy.
Congress MP KC Venugopal cited Amit Shah’s arrest in Gujarat in 2010 and questioned whether ethics were followed at that time. Amit Shah replied that he had resigned before his arrest.
TMC’s Abhishek Banerjee said that the bill aims to “maintain political power and wealth, but avoid accountability”. Shiv Sena (Uttar Pradesh) called it a move to end democracy and take the country towards dictatorship.
Many political experts say that the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 can also be used to put pressure on opposition parties and change how people see them.
The bill makes it easier to remove Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and Ministers who are accused of serious crimes. Experts think this can help the government look strong against corruption, but it might also hurt opposition leaders. Some people worry that the bill could be used in a way that targets only government rivals, making it harder for opposition parties to work together or challenge the ruling party.
Overall, experts feel that while stopping corruption is important, this bill could also be used as a tool for politics, making the ruling party look good and the opposition look bad.
The perception of arrest and removal of opposition leaders, especially at the time of elections, gives the government an opportunity to control social and media. The possibility of the opposition not participating in the Joint Parliamentary Committee may also create more propaganda material for the government.
At the same time, the government claims that the bill aims to promote political ethics and accountability. According to sources, the incident of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal remaining in his post during his arrest highlighted the need for this bill.
Opposition’s concern and argument
The opposition argues that the bill removes the minister from office only on the basis of arrest, while there is no need for punishment or conviction. This is against the principle “innocent until proven guilty”.
Owaisi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi and TMC leaders say that the bill can be misused by the Center to create instability in opposition-states.
Joint Parliamentary Committee
The three bills introduced by Home Minister Amit Shah in Parliament on Wednesday have been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). It will consist of 21 members of the Lok Sabha and 10 members of the Rajya Sabha, nominated by the Speaker and Deputy Chairperson respectively. The JPC has been asked to review the bills in detail and submit its report to Parliament by the last day of the first week of the next session (winter session).
According to analysts, this move may be part of the government’s political strategy, giving the opposition a “last chance” for debate and protest.
Possible impact
If the bill is passed then:
The Prime Minister, Chief Minister and Ministers may step down even if they are accused.
The possibility of misuse of central agencies for political opponents may increase.
Challenge in the Supreme Court, long legal battles and constitutional disputes.
Debate on corruption and ethics among the media and the public.
New challenges for the opposition and the government in electoral strategy.
Political analysts believe that the real purpose of the bill is to send a message and put pressure on the opposition, not just to curb corruption. The response of opposition and support to this bill will affect public opinion and the media.
Why It’s Hard to Pass the Bill?
To implement the Constitution Amendment Bill, it is necessary to pass it with a two-thirds majority in both the houses of Parliament. Currently, there are 542 members in the Lok Sabha, out of which at least 361 votes are required to get a two-thirds majority. The NDA has only 293 members, so it is difficult to pass it. Even if some non-aligned parties support the government, the required number will still not be met.
The situation is similar in the Rajya Sabha. The upper house has 239 members and 160 votes are needed to pass the bill, while the NDA has only 132 members. This means that the bill cannot be passed in Parliament without the support of the opposition.
Even if this bill hypothetically passes the Parliament, there is still a long way to go. This bill affects the federal structure of the country and will also require the approval of at least half of the states and union territories.
However, this problem may be less for the BJP as it is in power in most of the states. Moreover, many MPs have said that this bill is against the basic structure of the Constitution and the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, hence it can be challenged in the Supreme Court.
