Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three bills that propose the removal of elected lawmakers including the prime minister, chief ministers, and union ministers in the event of their arrest or detention for more than 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. The bills introduced for reference to the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) are Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
The motion for adoption was passed amid uproar from the Opposition. Some Opposition MPs even tore copies of the bill and threw them towards the home minister in protest.
What are the key provisions of the bill?
According to the bill, any elected minister is liable to be removed from office if he is arrested or detained for 30 consecutive days on allegations of any offence that is punishable with a jail term of five years or more.
This bill is applicable to all elected officials including the prime minister, chief minister or any cabinet minister at the Centre or in the State/Union Territory governments.
In case a Prime Minister is arrested or detained on criminal charges he may tender his resignation by the 31st day of his detention. If he does not resign, he shall cease to be the Prime Minister with effect from the day falling thereafter. The same applies for chief ministers as well.
However, the bill has allowed scope for reappointment of the detained/arrested lawmakers after their release from custody, subject to approval.
What is the purpose of this bill?
According to the Centre’s statement and objective, an elected official must uphold high standards of conduct and should be “beyond the ray of suspicion”. The bill aims to bring in clean governance, even as the Opposition are crying foul.
“The elected representatives represent hopes and aspirations of the people of India. It is expected that they rise above political interests and act only in the public interest and for the welfare of people,” the bill read.
The bill suggests that a minister facing allegations of serious criminal misconduct may “thwart or hinder” canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance. This “eventually diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people in him”.
Implications of the bill
Opposition parties have strongly criticized this move, calling it “draconian.” They argue that the proposed law could be used as a political tool to destabilize Opposition-led state governments. The concern is that central investigative agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate, which are under the Centre’s control, could be misused to arrest a Chief Minister or Minister and ensure their detention for 30 consecutive days to trigger their automatic removal from office.
This concern is amplified by recent high-profile arrests of opposition leaders, such as former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Under the current law, there is no provision for automatic removal of an elected official based on allegations of criminal offences.
The proposed law could also serve as a shortcut to Article 356—which allows for the President’s rule in a State in the event the government loses majority, faces political instability or does not maintain uphold law and order—which had become too complicated to invoke due to various Supreme Court judgements.
Take the Arvind Kejriwal case for example. Kejriwal was arrested by the probe agencies on corruption charges when he was still a sitting chief minister. At the time, Kejriwal had refused to resign and was released on bail after five months in jail. If this bill was in force at the time, Kejriwal would’ve been removed from office on the 31st day of his incarceration.
The opposition has spoken against the bill which, if passed, will impact the tenets of the constitution. The bill bypasses due process and aims to penalize an accused based on mere allegations.
Under the current law, there are only two ways to remove a minister from office. One – a lawmaker stands disqualified under the provisions of the Representation of People Act if they are convicted for crimes and awarded a jail term of two years or more; Second – a Speaker of the house – Parliament or State Assembly, disqualifies a minister (including PM, CM).
Take the Arvind Kejriwal case for example. Kejriwal was arrested by the probe agencies on corruption charges when he was still a sitting chief minister. At the time, Kejriwal had refused to resign and was released on bail after five months in jail. If this bill was in force at the time, Kejriwal would’ve been removed from office on the 31st day of his incarceration.
The bills caused an uproar in the Lok Sabha and saw vociferous opposition. The bills violate the “principle of separation of power,” AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi said in protest of the bill. Owaisi warned that the bill could be used to destabilise opposition governments and empowered executive agencies to become “judge and executioner” based on “flimsy” suspicions and allegations.
“This government is hell-bent on creating a Police State. This will be a “death knell” unleashed on elected government. India's Constitution is being amended to turn this country into a Police State,” Owaisi said while addressing the house.
“This is nothing but creating a gestapo to ensure the Opposition does not survive,” Owaisi said adding that it would leave the ministers and Chief ministers at the mercy of executive agencies. This is like when the Gestapo was formed in Germany in 1933, Owaisi said.
Congress MP Manish Tewari called the bills “squarely destructive” of the basic structure doctrine. Tewari said the bills upend the rule of law which says one is innocent until proven guilty. “This bill stands the fundamental maxim of jurisprudence on its head and makes an investigating officer the boss of the prime minister,” the Congress leader said.
The bill “distorts parliamentary democracy” by “displacing the will of the people” through mere investigating agency bereft of judicial determination. This bill opens the door for political misuse by instrumentalities of the state whose arbitrary conduct has been repeatedly frowned upon by the Supreme Court and throws all constitutional safeguards to the winds, he said.
