Tempers are running high in India’s Parliament and on the streets as the government pushes forward with the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, a piece of legislation that could fundamentally alter the country’s political landscape. The bill, introduced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah during the Monsoon Session in August, proposes that any Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or minister—whether at the central or state level—arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges would be automatically removed from office on the 31st day. If released, the official could be reappointed, adding a layer of flexibility to the otherwise stringent measure.
The stated aim, according to Shah and government backers, is to uphold constitutional morality and ensure the public’s trust in its leaders. As Shah told ANI, “The Prime Minister himself has included the post of PM in this... Narendra Modi ji has brought a constitutional amendment against himself that if the Prime Minister goes to jail, he will have to resign.” Shah framed the move as an anti-corruption measure, arguing, “Can a PM, CM or minister run their government from jail and is it appropriate for the nation's democracy?” He further accused the opposition of seeking to “run the government from jail,” asserting, “My party and I completely reject the idea that this country cannot be governed without the person who is sitting there.”
Yet, the bill has ignited fierce debate and deepened partisan divides. Critics, including prominent opposition leaders, see it as a dangerous overreach that could destabilize governments and threaten the bedrock principles of democracy. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra accused the BJP government of “trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people,” while AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi warned that the amendment would enable the central government to “destabilise governments.” The editorial board of Business Standard went further, arguing that the amendment “weakens democracy by enabling governments to capture law enforcement institutions and bypass judicial processes.”
The controversy is not limited to the bill’s immediate effects. The amendment seeks to modify Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Indian Constitution, which define the tenures and powers of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Union Territory leaders. It would empower the President to remove the Prime Minister, Governors to remove Chief Ministers, and Lieutenant-Governors to remove Union Territory Chief Ministers if they are detained under serious criminal charges for 30 days. Notably, the threshold for removal is not conviction but mere detention, raising alarms about the potential for abuse—especially in a country where political vendettas and weaponization of investigative agencies are not unheard of.
To address the uproar, the government has sent the bill, along with two related measures—the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025—to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. This committee, comprising 21 Lok Sabha and 10 Rajya Sabha members from both government and opposition benches, is tasked with scrutinizing the legislation and making recommendations. Whether this process will yield substantive changes or simply delay the inevitable remains to be seen.
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat, a figure whose opinions often carry significant political weight, weighed in on the debate during a recent Q&A session in Delhi. He struck a measured tone, stating, “Leadership should be transparent and untainted, that's the fundamental basis. This logic is acceptable to everyone, including the RSS.” He emphasized the importance of parliamentary supremacy: “Parliament is the deciding body, and whatever it says, that will be implemented.” Bhagwat’s remarks, while not explicitly endorsing or opposing the bill, underscored the gravity of the debate and the expectation that Parliament’s decision will be final.
The bill’s journey through Parliament has been tumultuous. Opposition MPs have staged protests, even tearing up copies of the proposed legislation in the Lok Sabha. Critics like Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Asaduddin Owaisi have labeled the bills “draconian” and “unconstitutional,” arguing that they bypass the bedrock legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. The editorial in Business Standard echoed these concerns, warning that the bill “removes officials without convictions, undermining legal principles.”
Supporters, on the other hand, see the bill as a long-overdue step toward cleaning up Indian politics. Pradeep Bhandari, a political commentator, called it a “landmark moment” for transparency and accountability. They argue that the amendment would make it impossible for leaders facing serious criminal charges to continue wielding power from behind bars—a scenario that, while rare, has occurred in Indian political history. Shah’s defenders point out that the bill allows for reappointment if the leader is exonerated, providing a safety valve against wrongful detention.
The stakes are high, and the debate reflects broader anxieties about the direction of Indian democracy. Amit Shah’s tenure as Home Minister, now the longest in India’s history, has been marked by bold and often controversial moves. From the abrogation of Article 370 and the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act to the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and now the 130th Amendment Bill, Shah has demonstrated what supporters call “decisive leadership” and critics decry as “authoritarian overreach.” His ability to shepherd contentious legislation through Parliament, often in the face of fierce opposition, has earned him both admiration and distrust.
Shah’s legislative strategy is informed by his experience as Gujarat’s Home Minister, where he drafted the state’s first anti-terror law and tackled internal security challenges. His reputation as a master strategist—one who can outmaneuver political adversaries and manage complex coalitions—has solidified the BJP’s dominance at the national level. But as the 130th Amendment Bill shows, that same tenacity can also spark fears of centralization and the erosion of checks and balances.
The bill’s future remains uncertain. The Joint Parliamentary Committee’s recommendations could reshape its final form, or political realities may force a compromise. What is clear is that the debate has tapped into deep currents of mistrust, hope, and anxiety about the future of Indian democracy. As Mohan Bhagwat observed, “Everyone should have faith that the leadership is transparent and untainted, and that should be the result of the matter.” Whether the 130th Amendment Bill will deliver on that promise—or undermine it—may well define the next chapter of Indian politics.
For now, all eyes remain on Parliament, where the battle lines are drawn and the stakes could hardly be higher.
