New Delhi: In a bold move to reinforce ethical governance, the Union government introduced three groundbreaking bills aimed at addressing gaps in the legal framework governing elected officials facing serious criminal charges. Titled the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025; the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025; and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, these bills seek to enforce the removal of high-ranking leaders, including the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers, detained for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable by five years or more in prison. The introduction of these bills in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025, triggered intense protests, heated exchanges, and their referral to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further review, spotlighting a contentious debate over political morality and constitutional integrity.
Legislative Framework and Objectives
The primary objective of these bills is to uphold constitutional morality, promote good governance, and protect the trust that citizens place in their elected representatives. The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75 (Union Council of Ministers), 164 (State Council of Ministers), and 239AA (special provisions for the National Capital Territory of Delhi). These changes aim to establish a legal mechanism for the mandatory removal of leaders detained on serious criminal allegations.
The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill extend similar provisions to Union Territories, ensuring uniformity across India’s administrative structures. Home Minister Amit Shah, in a statement distributed to Lok Sabha members, emphasized that elected representatives must embody public trust and maintain conduct above suspicion, prioritizing public welfare over personal or political interests.
Key Provisions for Removal
The bills outline a clear trigger for removal: an elected official arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days without bail on charges of committing an offense punishable by five years or more in prison. By the 31st day of custody, the removal or resignation process must be initiated. The process varies by position:
- Union Ministers: The Prime Minister recommends their removal to the President.
- State Ministers: The Chief Minister advises the Governor.
- Union Territory Ministers (with Legislative Assemblies): The Chief Minister recommends to the Lieutenant Governor.
- Prime Minister or Chief Ministers: No external recommendation is required; they must resign voluntarily or face automatic removal on the 31st day.
If no action—either resignation or formal advice for removal—is taken by the 31st day, the individual automatically ceases to hold office on the 32nd day. Notably, the bills allow for re-appointment by the President, Governor, or Lieutenant Governor upon the individual’s release from custody.
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill specifically amends the 2019 Act, arguing that ministers facing serious charges undermine constitutional morality and public confidence, necessitating their removal after 30 days of detention.
Comparison with Existing Laws
These bills expand on existing provisions under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, which disqualifies legislators from contesting elections or continuing in office upon conviction for certain offenses and imprisonment of at least two years. The Law Commission’s 170th Report had recommended that framing charges for offenses punishable by up to five years should also warrant disqualification. The new bills go further by focusing on pre-trial detention, addressing a loophole where accused leaders could remain in office during prolonged legal proceedings.
Lok Sabha Chaos and Opposition Outcry
The tabling of the bills on August 20, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in the Lok Sabha unleashed pandemonium. Opposition MPs, including those from the Trinamool Congress (TMC), Congress, and AIMIM, stormed the well of the House, shouting slogans decrying the bills as “unconstitutional and anti-federal.” TMC MPs escalated their protest by tearing copies of the legislation in front of Home Minister Amit Shah’s seat, leading to a brief jostle with ruling BJP members. Union Ministers Kiren Rijiju and Ravneet Singh Bittu stepped in to shield Mr. Shah, prompting TMC accusations of “pushing and shoving” their women MPs.
A sharp exchange unfolded between Mr. Shah and Congress leader K.C. Venugopal, who referenced Mr. Shah’s 2010 arrest as Gujarat’s Home Minister to question the government’s claim of restoring political morality. Mr. Venugopal asked if Mr. Shah had upheld morality then, to which Mr. Shah retorted that he had resigned voluntarily despite facing “fake allegations” from the then-Congress-led central government. “I abided by morality and ethics and did not accept any constitutional post until cleared of all charges,” Mr. Shah declared, adding, “We cannot be so shameless that we continue to occupy constitutional positions while facing serious charges.”
Amid the uproar, Speaker Om Birla admonished the protesting MPs, stating, “This is not appropriate behaviour. The entire country is watching. You are parliamentarians.” Despite his appeals for decorum and emphasis on the bills’ ethical intent, the Opposition persisted, leading to the House’s adjournment until 5 p.m.
Referral to Joint Parliamentary Committee
Following a voice vote, the bills were referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee comprising 21 Lok Sabha members and 10 Rajya Sabha members. The committee is tasked with submitting its report by the Winter Session, typically convened by the third week of November 2025, allowing for detailed scrutiny and potential amendments.
Political Reactions and Criticisms
The bills drew sharp criticism from Opposition leaders. Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, speaking at an event honoring the joint Opposition Vice-Presidential candidate, warned that the legislation could regress India to “medieval times when the King could remove anybody at will.” He highlighted the risk of misuse, stating, “He tells ED [Enforcement Directorate] to put a case, and a democratically elected person is wiped out within 30 days.”
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi called the bills a step toward turning India into a “police state” by amending the Constitution. Congress MP Manish Tewari labeled them as contrary to criminal justice principles, distorting parliamentary democracy and opening doors for political abuse. RSP MP N.K. Premchandran criticized the government’s “undue haste,” noting that the bills were not circulated to members as per House procedures. CPIM General Secretary M.A. Baby echoed concerns about potential political misuse.
Implications for Indian Governance
These bills mark a significant push toward accountability, aiming to deter criminal elements in politics by ensuring swift removal of leaders under serious allegations. However, the Opposition’s fears of authoritarian overreach and potential weaponization through agencies like the ED highlight a delicate balance. The Joint Parliamentary Committee’s review will be pivotal in addressing these concerns, possibly refining the bills to prevent misuse while upholding their ethical intent.
In conclusion, the introduction of these bills underscores India’s ongoing quest for cleaner politics. While the government champions them as a restoration of moral governance, the Opposition’s resistance signals a contentious road ahead. The Winter Session will be a critical juncture, determining whether these reforms strengthen India’s democratic fabric or invite new challenges in the balance of power.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What are the three bills introduced for ministerial removal on criminal charges in India?
The bills are the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025; the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025; and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025. They aim to establish a legal framework for removing elected officials, including the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers, detained for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable by five years or more in prison, to uphold constitutional morality and public trust.
2. What triggers the removal of a minister under these bills?
The removal process is triggered when an elected official, such as a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister, is arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days without bail on allegations of committing an offense under any law punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The removal or resignation must be initiated by the 31st day of custody.
3. How does the removal process work for different officials?
Union Ministers: The Prime Minister recommends their removal to the President.
State Ministers: The Chief Minister advises the Governor.
Union Territory Ministers (with Legislative Assemblies): The Chief Minister recommends to the Lieutenant Governor.
Prime Minister or Chief Ministers: They must resign voluntarily or face automatic removal on the 31st day of detention. If no action is taken by the 31st day, the office is vacated on the 32nd day. Re-appointment is allowed upon release from custody.
4. Why have these bills sparked controversy in the Lok Sabha?
The bills, introduced on August 20, 2025, led to protests from Opposition MPs, who labeled them “unconstitutional and anti-federal.” Critics, including Rahul Gandhi and Asaduddin Owaisi, argue they risk misuse by agencies like the Enforcement Directorate to target elected leaders, potentially undermining democracy. The chaotic Lok Sabha session saw TMC MPs tearing bill copies and clashes with BJP members, reflecting deep political divides.
5. What happens next with these bills?
Following their introduction, the bills were referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee with 21 Lok Sabha and 10 Rajya Sabha members after a voice vote. The committee is tasked with reviewing the bills and submitting a report by the Winter Session, typically by late November 2025, to refine the legislation and address concerns about potential political misuse.
