The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill 2025: Reforming Ministerial Accountability or Undermining Democratic Principles?

On August 20, 2025, the Union Home Minister laid before the Lok Sabha the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, an amendment probably one of the most controversial constitutional amendments in the contemporary history of the Indian Parliament. The bill, which proposes to prohibit ministers from ruling while in judicial custody, became the issue of considerable political controversy and ultimately was sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) following vociferous opposition protests. 

Illustration by The Geostrata

This proposed law signals a genuine intervention in the meeting of the criminal law space and the constitutional or government space, and raises some very serious issues of democratic accountability and the presumption of innocence, in addition to any essential balance between proper governance and the rights of individuals.

OVERVIEW OF THE 130^TH AMENDMENT BILL

The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposes to amend three important articles of the Indian Constitution:  (i)  Article 75 (Union Council of Ministers), (ii) Article 164 (State Councils of Ministers), and (iii) Article 239AA (special provisions relating to Delhi).  The amendment's provisions and mechanisms will be modified and implemented in various jurisdictions by the Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, ensuring that it applies to whatever level of government in India.

The fundamental aim of the bill is to automatically remove senior officials who have spent significant periods in judicial custody. 

These amendments specifically target any officials who hold a constitutional office, for example, the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers of States and Union Territories, and ministers of the central and state governments.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Constitutional gap: India's Constitution does not provide specific provisions for removing ministers, who are arrested and detained on serious criminal charges while remaining in office. This gap was bluntly highlighted in recent years, when various prominent ministers remained in office while in judicial custody, including the former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

Although the Former CM of Delhi tried to politicise his arrest, the bail conditions, as ordered by the Honourable Supreme Court, clearly prevented him from discharging any constitutional duties.

Additionally, the corruption crusader party of his is also accused of the liquor scam, for having allegedly appropriated those funds in various elections. Traditionally, ministers have resigned when arrested; however, this has gradually fallen out of practice. 

Historical precedents: The question of whether ministers can remain in office while facing criminal charges is not new. Some notable examples include Lalu Prasad Yadav when he was Bihar's Chief Minister.

The Fodder scam was surely a watershed moment in the history of India, when the chief minister became the first sitting office holder to be arrested.

The previous lack of any such provision only makes it more possible to believe that the makers of the constitution never really thought that such high offices would ever come into the limelight for all the wrong reasons, and more recently, Tamil Nadu minister V. Senthil Balaji was facing pressure from the Supreme Court for not resigning.

In the Kejriwal case, which was significant for Indian politics and law, Kejriwal was the first sitting Chief Minister to be arrested and continued to remain in office for several months while in custody. The case expressly highlighted the urgency for constitutional clarity.

KEY PROVISIONS AND MECHANISMS 

Grounds for removal:

The bill clearly states the two criteria for ministerial disqualification. A minister is subject to disqualification only if both of the following criteria are met: first, the minister must be charged with an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term that may be up to five years or longer; and second, that the minister must have been arrested and held in custody for 30 consecutive days. As a result of these two criteria being mandated, the provision only applies to serious criminal allegations and ongoing confinement or detention.

Procedural framework: 

The bill prescribes a systematic process for removal from office, which varies according to positions. For central government ministers, the President removes a minister by following the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must tender their advice by the 31st consecutive day of a minister's custody. If the Prime Minister fails to tender advice by the 31st consecutive day, the minister automatically ceases to hold office on the next day.

Similar provisions are made at the state level, with state governors removing ministers and acting on the advice of respective Chief Ministers.

In the Union Territory of Delhi, the President also acts on the advice of the Chief Minister because the Union Territory has its unique constitutional situation.

The most significant provisions in the Bill relate to the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers themselves. The Bill provides that these senior officials must resign from their office by the 31st consecutive day of custody. Failure to resign on or before the 31st consecutive day results in automatic cessation of office, thereby eliminating any discretionary decisions regarding their removal from office.

Rehabilitation clause:

Notably, the bill comes with a rehabilitation option. Ministers removed under this process will be reappointed once they have completed their sentence, acknowledging that imprisonment or detention is not synonymous with guilt and permitting the restoration of democratic mandates after the courts have resolved the issue.

GOVERNMENT’S JUSTIFICATION AND POLITICAL CONTEXT

The Government's official press release from the Press Information Bureau describes the amendment as the Government's response to falling moral values in public life and its commitment against political corruption. The Home Minister described the bill as legitimising integrity in politics, asserting that in recent years, we have all witnessed the "extraordinary situation" in which Chief Ministers and ministers were running their governments unethically from jail without resigning for moral reasons.

The government's rhetoric positions this amendment as a way to bring anyone holding constitutional office, including the Prime Minister, in the scope of the law rather than above it. Shah attempted to draw historical comparisons with the Emergency period, mentioning the 39th Constitutional Amendment which established special benefits for the prime minister, as opposed to the entire scope of this suggested amendment.

This framing attempts to portray this amendment in moral terms, with asking if it is a situation that any Minister, Chief Minister or Prime Minister should run the government from jail.

The government argues that the bill is in response to "public outrage at ongoing concerns of corruption" and that the opposition to the amendment comes from its desire to "protect corrupt" individuals.

Though the bill right now has been pushed out of the magnified political spectrum and has gone before a joint parliamentary committee (JPC), the relief for civil society and other non-political stakeholders or citizen pressure groups is that this bill will see the light of the day in the coming parliamentary sessions.

Moreover, the incessant opposition to the bill, would split the politics of the nation vertically as has been seen with previous constitutional amendments concerning Jammu and Kashmir or be it laws like the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 or the very recent Waqf amendments too. 

The lack of bipartisan support speaks a lot about a lack of desire for elected representatives to be more accountable or stay true to their purpose and constitutional obligation of public service and welfare.

However, the incumbent government seems to be a little heavier on the side of public accountability where by the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and its chief constituent the Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) has dealt with allegations of corruption against its leaders like Tirath Singh Rawat, former Chief Minister of Uttarakhand or Banagaru Laxman, former Union Minister with a heavy hand though the tag of being a perpetual washing machine still haunts it. 

CORRUPT MINISTERS EVERYWHERE - OPPOSITION REALLY CAN’T THINK 

West Bengal: However when it comes to the politics of the opposition, they really do not have much of being “squeaky clean” to display. Starting with the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) a host of its senior leaders have been mired in serious scams and that too red handed. Starting with Partha Chatterjee, former education Minister at the centre of the multi crore teacher recruitment scam, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) raiding bundles of cash from his paramour to Anubrata Keshto Mandal, alleged of cattle smuggling, it's just the tip of the iceberg.

In addition to them, the likes of Firhad Hakim and Jyotipriya Mallick, all have had to answer before premier investigation agencies, mostly ED, for their alleged crimes.

Though the devil's advocate can easily push the envelope in the name of agency misuse, the use of acts like Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA, 2002) speak a lot about the nature of these crimes. Moreover the obiter dictas, given by the courts at various levels while denying relief to these tainted ministers, can't really be a proof of innocence at least.

Not to mention the ghosts of Sarada and Narada chit fund scams that haunt the incumbent West Bengal government, all before a year to the state legislative assembly elections.

This has even drawn the ire of Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee, who has refused to join the JPC created to examine the bill. It goes without mention that previously “firebrand” member of parliament Mahua Moitra, had to lose her house membership for “cash/gifts for questions” complaint involving a reputed business house too, though such acts are not being dealt with in this proposed bill much to the dismay of stakeholders. 

Tamil Nadu: Another state being ruled by the opposition Dravida Munnetra Kazgham (DMK), has seen its premier ministers like V. Senthil Balaji, being incarcerated for the jobs for cash scam, where the charges have already been formulated, though he ceased to be a minister after a lot of opposition. The government is already facing heat for the TASMAC corruption. Corruption convictions have been in the history of the party itself with its leaders like A. Raja, former Union Minister being accused in the 2G spectrum case from the UPA -2 era (2014-19) along with MP Kanimozhi. 

Jharkhand: Incumbent Chief Minister Hemant Soren and now party patriarch of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) too was interned for a land scam, though it did not affect the party electorally which stormed back to power a year ago in the state elections. Though this arrest would seem to haunt him, if this bill in its current shape would see the light of the day. 

Is Right to Recall being replicated? 

Over the issue of this bill being similar to the provisions of a eurocentric concept of right to recall, hold no real water, as this concept created to subvert the dereliction of duty never really had political criminality as its centre of thought or practice.

However, the proposed bill does have the fragrance of accountability and speaking truth to political power at its core. 

MULTIPLICITY OF ORGANISATIONS OR A STREAMLINE MUCH NEEDED?

Until now to check such acts of corruption or abuse of ministerial power, a multiplicity of organisations have been created which are carrying out their work as well. To begin with, the K. Santhanam committee recommended the creation of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as a body under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and specially the Department of Personnel Training.

However it was not until the CVC act of 2003, that this body was given any statutory teeth. It was the same K. Santhanam committee that in addition had recommended the creation of The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Delhi  Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, as the primary investigative body for investigating offences of economic nature which had a corruption or bribery angle attached to it.

The CVC was to be the complaint body and the CBI was the investigative agency only to be called as the government's parrot as was seen in the Bofors Case, Fodder Scam case and a hoard of other corruption scams between 2004 – 14.

This catapulted Anna Hazare and his followers under the banner of India Against Corruption (IAC) to demand a nationwide Lokpal and Lokayukta at the union as well as at the level of the states to bypass any government interference or to mitigate allegations of power abuse.

At the time of writing, there were 12 States which have not appointed or lokayukt with the matter pending before the honourable Supreme Court, only showcasing the high-handedness of the political executive. This when seen through the prism of the historic recommendations of the 1st Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) (1966) under former Prime Minister Morarji Desai followed by the 2nd ARC under Veerappa Moilly (2005), a lot has been said about curbing corruption of the permanent executive under the All India services, but the Indian quasi federal structure having and over bearing political executive show cases where the real problem lies. 

The case study of defection famously termed as “Aaya Raam, Gaya Ram”, can be a valid case study highlight why constitutional mechanisms guarantee political stability with accountability as until the 10th schedule and the 52nd  Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, political defection question the legitimacy of the electorate's political intelligence. It was only with the onset of these constitutional provisions and landmark judgements of the supreme court in Kihoto v. Hollohan (1992) or Speaker v. Nabam Rebia (2016) that political horse trading with the evil of money and muscle power could somewhat be curbed. 

CONCLUSION

At the end it all boils down to jurisprudential thought which mentions the first rule as the rule of mischief talking about looking at the real intent of the legislature which hair in is to bring out accountability and warding the evil of misuse of public funds followed by the golden rule of jurisprudence, which aims at reducing all possible absurdity and fulfilling the real purpose of the legislation. 

It's here that must be noted that in India's tryst with its self written destiny to be Viksit Bharat by 2047, the real mischief is of those who profit out of the public exchequer by their heinous corrupt acts and the only absurdity is that nothing much is done to curb it with years of judicial pendency, sly rates of conviction and pure political mud- slinging. The only prayer, therefore, to our political parties would be: don't be our overlords, answer to us by making accountability the shining star and let the Constitution by which you swear, be the final dictate of a clean politics and a future-ready nation.

---

BY KAUSHAL SINGH & SAUHARDI UNIYAL

CENTRE FOR POLITICS AND LAW

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com