Why in the news?

• Loksabha has referred the Constitution Amendment(130th) Bill, 2025 to a Joint parliamentary Committee for detailed scrutiny.

Constitution Amendment(130th) Bill, 2025

• What is it?:
  • The bill brings a provision to remove any minister from his post, who has been in jail for 30 days for a serious offence.
  • The term ‘Serious Offence’ means – An offence under any law for the time being in force, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more.
• Features of the Bill:
  • No person, while under arrest and in jail, can govern as Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister of the Central or State Government.
  • The bill includes a provision that allows an accused politician to seek bail from the court within 30 days of arrest.
  • If they fail to secure bail within 30 days, on the 31st day, either the Prime Minister at the Center or the Chief Ministers in the states shall tender advise The President of India for their removal.
  • If the advice of the Chief Minister, for the removal of such a Minister is not tendered to the President by the thirty-first day, the arrested minister shall cease to be a Minister, with effect from the day falling thereafter.
  • Once the arrested minister is released from jail, it is theoretically possible for them to be re-appointed.
  • The bill seeks to amend Articles 75, 164, and 239AA relating to Union, State, and Union Territory Ministers.
  • The rationale of the bill is explained to be ensuring constitutional morality and good governance, preventing erosion of public trust.
  • Requires two-thirds majority in Parliament for passage.
• Supreme Court’s Previous Position:
  • The current legal framework under the Representation of the People Act (Section 8) provides for disqualification only after conviction (with a sentence of two years or more), not upon arrest.
    • The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), stating membership must be disqualified from the date of conviction and that delaying disqualification through appeals is unconstitutional
  • The Court held there is no legal bar on someone with criminal antecedents from being appointed as a minister in Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014).
  • The Supreme Court, in a five-judge bench, maintained that only Parliament- not courts- can legislate new grounds for disqualification. The Court also urged Parliament to enact laws mandating political parties to revoke membership of those against whom charges are framed in serious cases.
  • The Law Commission (1999 & 2014) and the Election Commission (2004) recommended disqualification upon framing of charges, but not earlier acts like filing of FIR or chargesheet.
• Significance of the Bill:
  • Addresses criminalisation of politics.
  • Upholds public trust in constitutional offices.
  • Fills the gaps where Ministers exploit prolonged trials.
• Concerns regarding the Bill:
  • Ministers are punished by losing their post simply on the basis of arrest, and not after conviction is deemed to be an unfair practice.
    • Provision to remove convicted ministers already exists in Indian law.
    • As per Indian system, the accused is presumed innocent, until proven guilty.
  • Works against the separation of powers enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
    • Executive agencies taking over judicial functions.
  • It is being feared to be used as a tool to target opposition ruled states to destabilise their governments.