On August 20, 2025, the Indian Parliament’s Monsoon session, which had been largely uneventful until then, erupted into controversy and debate with the sudden introduction of the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill. Union Home Minister Amit Shah tabled the bill in the Lok Sabha, instantly setting off a political firestorm that has since dominated headlines and conversations across the country. The bill, which proposes sweeping changes to the rules governing the tenure of India’s top elected officials, has not only divided the political class but also raised fundamental questions about constitutional rights, federalism, and the very nature of justice in a democracy.
The timing and content of the bill took many by surprise. According to The Wire, the revised agenda for the Lok Sabha was circulated late on August 19, sparking rumors and speculation among politicians and the media. Many initially guessed that the bill might concern statehood for Jammu and Kashmir, but the actual provisions proved to be far more unexpected and, for some, deeply contentious.
At the heart of the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill is a new rule: if the prime minister, any union minister, or the chief minister or minister of a state or union territory is arrested for an offence punishable by more than five years in prison and remains in custody for 30 consecutive days, they must be removed from their position. This would be accomplished by amending Articles 75, 164, and 239 AA of the Indian Constitution, as well as revising the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
The Modi government’s stated rationale is straightforward. As The Wire reports, the government has argued that the criminalisation of politics is a serious issue and that the bill is a much-needed reform to prevent individuals facing grave criminal charges from continuing to hold high office. Proponents of the bill say it is long overdue, pointing to the need for greater integrity and accountability in public life.
But the opposition has responded with fierce resistance. Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, in a statement reported by The Hindu, accused the central government of using the bill as a “new tactic to target and weaken non-BJP state governments.” He went further, calling it “a new experiment of neo-fascist politics” and alleging that the move was part of the Sangh Parivar’s broader strategy to destabilize elected state governments by misusing central investigative agencies.
Vijayan did not mince words in his criticism. “Chief ministers and ministers entrusted with constitutional responsibilities have been imprisoned for long periods in fabricated cases. The haste to bring in the 130th Constitutional Amendment stems from the frustration that such leaders refused to resign,” he said, as quoted by The Hindu. He also accused the BJP of double standards, stating, “Those arrested in corruption cases are projected as saints once they switch sides and join the BJP. The party must explain what constitutional morality justifies such strange logic.”
One of the bill’s most controversial aspects is that it allows for the removal of elected representatives based solely on detention, not conviction. Critics argue that this contradicts the principle of natural justice—innocent until proven guilty. As The Wire points out, existing law, including the Representation of People’s Act 1951 and the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Lily Thomas (2013), disqualifies MPs and MLAs only upon conviction for two years or more in defined offences. Under current law, as long as a person remains eligible as an MP or MLA, they can continue in office, even if they are not a member for up to six months. The bill, however, sets a separate, stricter standard for ministers, raising the question: can someone legally eligible to be an MP or MLA be barred from serving as a minister simply due to arrest and not conviction?
The legal ambiguities do not end there. There is uncertainty over whether the bill requires ratification by half of the state legislatures, as specified by Article 368 of the Constitution, or if approval by both houses of Parliament will suffice. The bill’s Statement of Objectives does not clarify this, and, as The Wire notes, this could become a sticking point as the bill moves forward. The government will need to navigate these constitutional waters carefully, especially given the quasi-federal nature of India’s system and the precedent set by the reading down of Article 370 in 2019.
The opposition’s central concern is the potential for misuse. They argue that the bill gives the central government a powerful new tool to dislodge state governments led by rival parties. By arresting chief ministers or ministers on serious charges—potentially fabricated or exaggerated, critics say—the central government could force their removal after just 30 days in custody, even if no conviction is secured. The specter of central agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) being used to target political opponents looms large in these arguments.
“The latest moves are aimed at eroding the constitutional rights of states and establishing governors’ veto power over legislatures,” Vijayan warned, urging “all democratic forces to raise a strong protest against what he described as an ‘anti-democratic attempt’ by the Sangh Parivar to undermine political opponents,” as reported by The Hindu.
Meanwhile, legal experts are raising questions about the bill’s compatibility with fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) could be threatened if elected officials are removed based on detention rather than conviction, critics argue. The arbitrary nature of the 30-day custody period has also come under fire. As The Wire notes, critics see this as a number chosen to align with standard judicial remand periods, rather than being grounded in any principle of justice or fairness.
Supporters of the bill, for their part, insist that the reforms are necessary to restore public trust in government and to ensure that serious criminal allegations are not brushed aside. They argue that the existing system allows individuals facing grave charges to cling to power, undermining the credibility of India’s democracy.
Given the ruling coalition’s lack of a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament, the fate of the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill remains uncertain. Should it pass, it is widely expected that the matter will be challenged in the Supreme Court, where the tension between constitutional morality and established legal principles will be put to the ultimate test.
The debate over the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill has exposed deep divisions in Indian politics and law. As the bill moves forward, it will test not only the strength of India’s constitutional framework but also the resilience of its democracy in the face of political and legal challenges.
