In a move that has drawn sharp criticism from the opposition, the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025. It was subsequently referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).
According to the government, the Amendment Bill reflects its commitment to tackling political corruption. It provides for the removal of individuals holding important constitutional positions if they are arrested and detained in connection with serious criminal offences.
The Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution. Its key provisions include:
- Removal of Minister: At the central level, a Minister will be removed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister if:
- the Minister is accused of committing an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more; and
- he has been arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days.
At the state level, the Minister will be removed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and in the case of Delhi, the President will act on the advice of the Chief Minister.
However, if the advice of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister is not tendered by the 31st day, the Minister will cease to hold office from the day thereafter.
- Resignation by Prime Minister or Chief Minister: In the case of the Prime Minister, or a Chief Minister of a state or Delhi, he must tender his resignation by the 31st day after such arrest and detention. If no resignation is tendered, he will automatically cease to hold office from the following day.
- Re-appointment: There is no bar on the Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or the Minister so removed from office from subsequently being appointed on his release from custody.
Similar provisions are proposed for the Union Territories of Puducherry and Jammu and Kashmir through the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, both introduced on the same day.
The introduction of the Amendment Bill comes in the wake of recent controversies, including the case of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who did not resign even after his arrest in the liquor policy case last year.
The government argues that a minister facing serious criminal charges, arrested and detained in custody, “may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance and eventually diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people in him.” Critics, however, have flagged concerns over possible violation of the basic structure of the Constitution and the principle of presumption of innocence, as well as the potential weaponisation of central agencies, and misuse of laws such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, to destabilise elected governments.
Notably, the Amendment Bill requires to be passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, a number the government currently does not command. This has fuelled speculation that the move is aimed more at shaping public perception and spotlighting corruption in politics, especially at a time when the opposition has been attacking the government over the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar and the allegations of “vote theft.”
In most established democracies, the removal of leaders is not automatic upon arrest but carried out through political and legislative mechanisms such as impeachment, vote of no-confidence, or mounting political pressure.