In a week marked by heated debates and high-stakes political maneuvering, India’s Parliament and state assemblies found themselves at the center of a storm over constitutional amendments that could reshape the landscape of political accountability and social justice. At the heart of the controversy are two parallel but deeply intertwined battles: the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, which seeks to automatically remove ministers detained for serious criminal charges, and the push for enhanced reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) in Telangana.
On August 31, 2025, Congress leader and Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari set the tone for the national debate by sharply criticizing the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The bill, now referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), proposes that the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and other ministers—both at the Centre and in the states—must resign or be removed from office if they are arrested and detained for 30 days on charges punishable by more than five years in prison. According to Tewari, the bill is less about upholding justice and more about political gamesmanship. “This law is not for the Opposition but rather to scare them (NDA allies),” he told ANI, hinting at the BJP’s need to keep its coalition partners, such as the Janata Dal (United) and Telugu Desam Party (TDP), in check.
Passing a constitutional amendment in India is no small feat: it requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament, or 364 out of 543 votes in the Lok Sabha alone. Tewari questioned whether the BJP could muster such support, especially from its own allies. “First of all, a Constitutional amendment needs a two-thirds majority in both houses. Will the allies in the government, the coalition partners who are providing support, also support this?” he asked pointedly.
But Tewari’s objections went beyond the arithmetic of parliamentary votes. He argued that the bill is "completely destructive" of the Constitution’s basic structure, especially Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. "The basic structure doctrine holds that rule of law and democracy are indestructible features of the Indian Constitution. Implicit in the rule of law, going back to the time of the ancient Greeks and the Romans, is the presumption that you are innocent until proven guilty," he said, underscoring a principle that forms the bedrock of modern jurisprudence. Tewari even called the bill "absurd in its conception," suggesting it should be withdrawn outright rather than discussed by the JPC.
Comparing the bill to the 10th Schedule (the anti-defection law introduced in 1985), Tewari argued that legislation alone cannot instill ethics in politics. "When you talk about ethics, then that cannot be taught with law. You tried to teach it with law, but when the 10th Schedule was included in the Constitution, to stop this 'aaya Ram gaya Ram', it was called the anti-defection law. Did defection stop? One which was a 'retail' activity till 1985 that became wholesale, to supermarket, to now being a mega mall activity," he said, painting a vivid picture of the persistent challenges in Indian politics.
He also warned that the bill could be weaponized to target political opponents through fake cases, with investigative agencies—especially under laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)—being used to keep rivals behind bars for extended periods. "There are so many fake cases which are filed, through which law enforcement agencies are weaponised. Tomorrow you can put a case on anyone, and for 30 days they are kept inside. In PMLA law, you won't get bail for 2-3 years," Tewari cautioned, echoing concerns about the misuse of legal provisions for political ends.
The bill’s introduction has not gone unnoticed by other parties. The Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) have announced their intention to boycott the JPC, while AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, despite his criticisms, has expressed willingness to participate in the discussions. The Congress, meanwhile, has consistently labeled the bill as "draconian" and a "distraction" from what they allege are more pressing issues, such as the so-called ‘vote chori’ (vote theft) raised by Rahul Gandhi. When the bill was tabled in Parliament, opposition leaders dramatically tore it up in protest—a vivid illustration of the tensions it has unleashed.
Meanwhile, ThePrint published a subscriber viewpoint that added another layer to the debate. The piece highlighted that over 44% of sitting lawmakers in the national parliament have declared criminal cases against them, with 29% facing serious charges such as murder, crimes against women, and kidnapping. The article traced the history of efforts to bar convicted politicians from office, referencing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s caution against micro-managing such matters through constitutional amendments. The author argued that while the spirit of the bill might be laudable, its focus on a small section of society could be discriminatory. "Why should a Minister get a grace period of thirty days while the same is denied to other government servants?" the writer asked, pointing to the need for laws that apply equally to all citizens, regardless of status or power.
In Telangana, the conversation around constitutional amendments has taken on a different—but equally charged—dimension. On September 1, 2025, Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) working president KT Rama Rao (KTR) threw his weight behind the Panchayat Raj Amendment Bill 2025, which seeks to exceed the 50% quota cap for Backward Classes (BCs). But KTR didn’t stop there; he accused the Congress government of changing its stance on BC quotas five times and misleading the public. "If chief minister Revanth Reddy is truly committed to empowering BCs, he should sit on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar in Delhi until the BC bill is passed," KTR asserted, challenging the Congress to match words with deeds.
KTR’s remarks, as reported by The Hans India, underscored the BRS’s long-standing advocacy for BC welfare. He recalled that KCR, the BRS founder, was the first leader in India to demand a separate Union ministry for OBC welfare in 2004, and that the Telangana Assembly had passed resolutions demanding a caste census and OBC reservations in legislatures, forwarding them to the Centre. "If Congress and BJP are really serious, let them bring a constitutional amendment in Parliament—only that can permanently ensure enhanced BC reservations," KTR insisted, emphasizing that true justice for BCs can only be delivered through robust constitutional change.
Ministers D Sridhar Babu, Ponnam Prabhakar, and D Seethakka expressed optimism that the governor would approve the bill and that the Supreme Court would soon provide clarity on the issue. But KTR warned that laws must be crafted without loopholes, or risk being struck down by judicial review. "Declarations are not enough. Dedication is what matters," he said, calling for sincerity and follow-through from the government.
As India grapples with these complex questions of legal reform, political accountability, and social justice, the debates in Parliament and state assemblies reflect the high stakes involved. Whether it’s holding ministers accountable for criminal conduct or ensuring fair representation for marginalized groups, the path forward will require more than grand declarations—it will demand a renewed commitment to the principles of equality, justice, and the rule of law.
