In a week marked by fiery exchanges and political posturing, the Indian Parliament has become the stage for a fierce debate over the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025—a proposal that could fundamentally alter the country’s approach to political accountability. The bill, which seeks to remove Union or State ministers (including Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister) if they are detained for 30 days or more on serious criminal charges, has drawn sharp criticism and equally forceful defense from the nation’s leading parties.
At the heart of the controversy stands Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who has championed the bill as a measure to restore political morality and strengthen democratic values. In an interview with ANI, Shah did not mince words, accusing the Opposition of being “undemocratic” by disrupting Parliament and refusing to allow the bill to be tabled. “If an elected government is bringing a Bill or a constitutional amendment and putting it before the House, what opposition can there be to that? That too when I had made it clear that it would be handed over to a joint committee of both Houses,” Shah said, according to The Indian Express. He added, “You can express your views there. And when it is put to a vote, you can vote. But in a democracy, is it good to stop a Bill from even being presented in the Lok Sabha? Is the Parliament for discussion or ruckus? We have also opposed on issues, but to not let a Bill be presented, I believe, is undemocratic. The Opposition will have to answer the people of the country.”
Shah’s defense of the bill goes beyond procedural complaints. He insists that the proposed law is aimed at addressing what he calls a “new trend” in Indian politics: ministers refusing to resign even after being sent to jail. “Since Independence, many leaders have gone to jail, and all resigned before going to jail. A new trend has emerged now that even after going to jail, you won’t resign,” Shah said, referencing recent cases involving ministers in Tamil Nadu and Delhi. “Will DGPs and chief secretaries go to jail to take orders? Will this grant our democracy any respect in the world?”
The bill’s provisions are specific: it applies only to offences punishable by five years or more, such as corruption and other serious crimes. Shah pointed out that “it does not concern small charges. Even today, there is a law that if you are sentenced to more than two years of jail, you will lose your legislative membership.” He emphasized the 30-day custody rule as a safeguard against frivolous or politically motivated cases, arguing, “If the case is bogus, the High Courts and the Supreme Court are not sitting with their eyes shut. The courts have a right to grant bail. If it is not granted, you will have to leave the post. I want to ask, can a CM or PM run the government from jail? Does it befit a democracy? And if they are granted bail after 30 days, they can take oath again.”
Yet, the bill’s critics are not convinced. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), led by its national media in-charge Anurag Dhanda, has accused Shah and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of using the amendment as a weapon to topple the AAP government in Delhi. “It is clear from the BJP’s and Amit Shah’s statements that to bring down the Arvind Kejriwal government, all fake cases were charged against him. It was a conspiracy by the BJP to bring down the AAP government in Delhi. Today, people are remembering Arvind Kejriwal’s governance from jail,” Dhanda told reporters, as reported by Mathrubhumi.
Dhanda’s criticism did not stop there. He contrasted the current state of Delhi under Chief Minister Rekha Gupta with the tenure of former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is currently jailed on charges AAP claims are fabricated. “Rekha Gupta ji is not in jail, yet, private school fees are increasing, sewer water is flowing on roads, crimes are increasing, there is a shortage of water in colonies, and there are power cuts,” Dhanda said, painting a bleak picture of the capital’s governance post-Kejriwal.
Arvind Kejriwal himself, despite being behind bars, weighed in on the controversy via social media. In a pointed message on X, he challenged the logic of the bill and turned the spotlight on the ruling party’s own record. “Should a person who includes criminals of serious crimes in his party, gets all their cases dismissed, and makes them ministers, deputy chief ministers, or chief ministers, also be required to resign from his position? How many years of imprisonment should such a person face?” Kejriwal wrote, highlighting what he sees as hypocrisy in the government’s approach to morality and accountability.
Shah, for his part, has sought to dispel fears that the bill could be selectively enforced against opposition leaders. “Today, NDA has most chief ministers in the country. Even the PM is from the NDA. The Bill does not just raise questions on Opposition CMs, but also ours,” he asserted. “They say FIRs are not registered against our leaders. Everybody knows there is something called a PIL. If there is an allegation against a leader, go to the court. The court will order an FIR. If it is a serious matter, the court will even monitor investigations. It’s not a question of ruling party or Opposition.”
Addressing concerns that the government could pressure the courts to deny bail within the critical 30-day window, Shah dismissed such worries as “political propaganda.” He argued, “This is merely a beautifully constructed argument by them to remain stuck to the chair. I believe our courts are sensitive and will decide matters well within time.”
The debate has also revived old wounds and accusations of double standards. Shah cited the Congress party’s own history, recalling the 2013 ordinance brought by the Manmohan Singh government to protect convicted MPs, and Rahul Gandhi’s dramatic public rejection of it. “Congress is opposing this today. When they were in power and Manmohan Singh was the PM, Lalu Yadav was their minister. Lalu was sentenced in the fodder scam. The Manmohan Singh government brought an ordinance that, pending appeal, even a sentencing of two years or more will not deprive an MP of membership,” Shah said. “The same Rahul Gandhi had publicly torn the ordinance in a press conference. He mocked a decision taken by his party’s cabinet and PM on moral grounds, making Manmohan Singh cut a sorry figure. Now, the same Rahul Gandhi, in order to form a government in Bihar, is hugging a convicted Lalu Yadav. Is this not a double standard? If it was morality then, what is it now? Because you have lost three consecutive elections? The standards of morality cannot be linked with victory and defeat in elections. They should stay put like the sun and the moon.”
As Parliament remains gridlocked, Shah remains optimistic that the bill will pass, stating, “I am confident that this Bill will be passed by Parliament. There will be many within the Congress and the Opposition who will support the Bill to uphold morality in politics.”
For now, the fate of the 130th Amendment Bill hangs in the balance, with both sides trading accusations of hypocrisy, conspiracy, and undemocratic behavior. The outcome will not only shape the future of political accountability in India but also test the resilience of its democratic institutions in the face of deepening partisan divides.
