A Sugar-coated Bill

The BJP government’s introduction of the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill marks a significant moment in India’s legislative landscape. Tabled in Parliament on August 20 and referred to a Joint Committee for review, the Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution, which govern the composition and conduct of the Council of Ministers at both Union and State levels. At its core, the Bill mandates that any Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister arrested and held in custody for 30 consecutive days in connection with a criminal offence punishable by a minimum of five years’ imprisonment shall be removed from office. The mechanism outlined is stark. If the Prime Minister or Chief Minister fails to advise the removal of a detained Minister, the office shall be vacated automatically on the 31st day. Should the Prime Minister or Chief Minister themselves be detained under similar conditions, resignation becomes mandatory. Reappointment is permitted upon release, but the disruption to governance is evident. The government projects the measure as a strong step to uphold integrity in public life, ensuring that leaders accused of serious crimes do not continue in positions of authority. Yet, beneath this veneer of accountability lies a troubling possibility. The opposition has raised concerns that the Bill could become another instrument for political vendetta. Their skepticism does not stem merely from reflexive resistance to government initiatives but from past and present experiences. Central agencies like the CBI, NIA and ED, which operate under the Union government, have been repeatedly accused of selectively targeting opposition leaders. By mandating removal purely on the basis of arrest and not conviction, the Bill shifts away from the legal principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Existing laws already provide for disqualification of lawmakers upon conviction. To extend punitive consequences to individuals still awaiting trial risks undermining both due process and the democratic mandate of the electorate. The fear is not misplaced that such provisions may destabilize elected governments in the states by strategically targeting key leaders through prolonged investigations. Political opponents such as the Congress, Samajwadi Party, and AAP have long voiced concerns that investigative agencies are wielded more as weapons than as instruments of justice. This proposed amendment could entrench that trend further, cloaked under the language of reform. Sweeping changes to the Constitution demand more than hurried passage or political maneuvering. They require careful deliberation, open debate, and broad consensus. A government confident of its intentions should not rush legislation that alters the democratic landscape. Instead of leaning on allies or persuading fence-sitters, it must demonstrate a willingness to engage in transparent discussion, address legitimate fears, and arrive at a solution that strengthens rather than erodes the democratic fabric. Opposition leaders argue that the amendment serves as a sugar-coated pill, masking partisan intent. They contend that the BJP habitually disregards the spirit of constitutional democracy, invoking its safeguards only when convenient. By enforcing removal based on arrest rather than conviction, the opposition said the government gains a tool to destabilize adversaries while claiming constitutional virtue in moments of difficulty. Laws meant to promote accountability should never create avenues for misuse. The 130th Amendment Bill, in its current form, risks crossing that line.