The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025, mandating resignation or automatic removal of Ministers, Chief Ministers, and the Prime Minister if in custody for over 30 consecutive days in crimes punishable with five years or more imprisonment.

Constitutional and Judicial Foundations

• Constitutional Basis: The Bill draws on Articles 75, 164, and 239AA, which vest ministerial tenure in the “pleasure” of the President or Governor, subject to constitutional morality.
• Judicial Interpretations: Landmark judgments such as Shamsher Singh, NabamRebia, and R. Bommai underscore constitutional morality, integrity, and accountability as guiding principles in governance.
• Ethical Dimension of Appointments: In Manoj Narula vs Union of India, the Supreme Court warned against appointing individuals facing serious criminal charges as Ministers, highlighting morality as integral to constitutional design.

Constitutional and Political Concerns

• Presumption of Innocence: Automatic removal on detention challenges Article 21, since disqualification under the Representation of the People Act occurs only upon conviction, as clarified in Lily Thomas vs Union of India.
• Executive Discretion and Political Risks: The dual mechanism of removal—advice-based or automatic—may politicise accountability, enabling partisan shielding or targeting of Ministers.
• Inconsistency in Treatment: Legislators face disqualification only upon conviction, but Ministers would be ousted on mere detention, creating asymmetry and undermining constitutional consistency.

Structural Limitations and Alternatives

• Revolving Door Instability: The provision allowing reappointment post-release could create cycles of resignation and reinstatement, generating political instability without ensuring accountability.
• Need for Nuanced Model: Reform could link removal to judicial milestones like framing of charges, ensuring judicial scrutiny prevents politically motivated arrests.
• Targeted Safeguards: Limiting the Bill’s scope to offences of moral turpitude and corruption, along with independent review mechanisms, would balance ethical governance with due process.

Practice Question

The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeks to address the problem of criminalisation in politics by mandating resignation or removal of Ministers under detention. Critically examine the constitutional, ethical, and political implications of such a framework. Suggest alternatives that balance integrity in governance with democratic safeguards.   (250 words)