Analysis of the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill
The 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, introduced in 2025, proposes mandatory resignation of Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, or Ministers if detained for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable by imprisonment for at least five years. This concept challenges the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence, as it equates detention with guilt without trial or conviction.
Purpose and Arguments
- Supporters claim it is morally unacceptable for officials to remain in power while facing serious criminal charges.
- The Home Minister defends the Bill by highlighting the erosion of public trust when Ministers continue in office despite detention.
- Proponents believe it reaffirms integrity as a key governance principle in a political landscape plagued by a lack of accountability.
Constitutional Framework
Article 75(1) and Article 164(1) of the Constitution dictate the appointment of Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers by the President and Governor, based on their advice. The Supreme Court's decision in Manoj Narula v Union of India (2014) reinforces that advice for ministerial appointments is binding unless disqualification occurs under the Constitution or the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. The Westminster model emphasizes executive accountability to the legislature.
Concerns and Criticism
- Presumption of Innocence: The Bill undermines this principle by treating detention as a preliminary declaration of guilt.
- Separation of Powers: It allows investigating agencies to influence ministerial positions without judicial oversight, risking political misuse.
- Effect on Parliamentary Governance: The resignation of a Prime Minister or Chief Minister could collapse entire governments without a legislative floor test, threatening the parliamentary system's stability.
Recommendations
- Removal from office should require a judicial finding of serious charges, rather than mere detention.
- Investigative agencies need insulation from political influence to maintain the rule of law, as emphasized in Vineet Narain v Union of India (1998).
- Constitutional amendments should reshape foundational charters with deliberation, not serve as tools of moral signalling.
Conclusion
The Bill, despite its intentions to promote accountability, risks eroding the essence of parliamentary democracy. Discretion should not be replaced with disqualification, nor political accountability with procedural compulsion. The Joint Parliamentary Committee must reconsider the Bill, ensuring that reform aligns with constitutional integrity and restraint.