On September 26, 2025, two major developments at the heart of India’s democracy—one in the northeastern state of Meghalaya and the other in the halls of Parliament—threw into sharp relief the country’s ongoing struggle to balance political accountability, regional autonomy, and the rule of law. While the Meghalaya government reaffirmed its commitment to empowering tribal councils and honoring a hard-won peace agreement with former Garo militants, the central government’s controversial 130th Constitution Amendment Bill reignited fierce debate about how best to root out criminality from the nation’s politics.
In Meghalaya, Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong announced after a high-level meeting that the state would “aggressively pursue” the passage of the 125th Constitutional Amendment Bill with the Centre, a move seen as essential to fully implementing the Agreed Text for Settlement signed in 2014 with the disbanded Achik National Volunteers Council (ANVC) and its splinter group, ANVC.B. According to Hub Network, this amendment aims to grant more financial, executive, and administrative powers to the tribal autonomous councils under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution—a step that many hope will secure lasting peace and spur development in the Garo Hills region.
Tynsong told reporters that “50-60% of the agreement’s aspirations have already been met,” but emphasized that full implementation hinges on the 125th amendment, which is currently stuck in Parliament. “This lies with the government of India as well as in the parliament as they have already introduced in Rajya Sabha and then Rajya Sabha has referred to the parliamentary standing committee (PSC) and recently the PSC has already recommended to the MHA, so it is pending there. So, we will pursue aggressively that the amendment should be passed by the parliament,” he said, noting that additional subjects need to be transferred to the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs), a move only possible through constitutional amendment.
In a bid to keep the process on track, the Meghalaya government decided to appoint a dedicated nodal officer to coordinate among the state, the former militant groups, and the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC). Tynsong explained, “The nodal officer will play a crucial role in ensuring that the agreement is implemented clause by clause and point by point, and will meet with ANVC & ANVC.B members regularly at Tura.”
The meeting also tackled a range of developmental projects, from road construction and forest preservation to cultural initiatives such as auditoriums, libraries, and cultural centers. Funding for these projects will come from both the Centre and the state government. Tynsong revealed that the government had cleared a surrender package for over 500 former militants, with each entitled to Rs 1.50 lakh and a monthly stipend of Rs 3,500 for six months. “The Agreed Text Agreement is 95% more or less is about development. With development, I am very sure this kind of thinking will no longer will be there,” he said, dismissing concerns about regrouping in the Garo Hills.
Regular quarterly meetings are now planned to monitor progress and address any outstanding issues. Tynsong stressed the importance of strengthening the ADCs, saying, “The Text Agreed Settlement says that the government should further strengthen the ADCs and the ADCs should again have more responsibilities in preserving the indigenous people and not only that even the function of the ADC should further be strengthened. Therefore, it links to the amendment of the Sixth Schedule.”
While Meghalaya’s leaders look to constitutional reform as a means of delivering on peace and development promises, the national stage is consumed by a very different constitutional battle—one over the integrity of political officeholders themselves. According to The Leaflet, nearly half of India’s lawmakers today face criminal charges, including serious offences such as murder, rape, and corruption. The problem is not new, but it has grown more acute, with 46 percent of sitting Lok Sabha MPs having pending criminal cases as of 2024. Data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch show that this issue cuts across party lines: the BJP has 39 percent of its leaders facing criminal charges, the Congress 49 percent, and regional parties like the Samajwadi Party and DMK even higher.
The legal framework for disqualifying tainted legislators is rooted in Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark Lily Thomas v. Union of India ruling in 2013, disqualification now takes effect immediately upon conviction, closing a loophole that once allowed convicted lawmakers to remain in office by simply filing appeals. Yet, as The Leaflet points out, this reform does not address the core issue: “Should judicial delay become an excuse for persons facing serious charges to remain in positions of power and shape policy?”
The 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, introduced in Parliament by the Union Home Minister, seeks to go further. It proposes that any minister arrested and held in custody for 30 consecutive days for an offence punishable by at least five years’ imprisonment should be removed from office. If the Prime Minister does not advise the President to remove the minister by the 31st day, the minister automatically loses their post on the 32nd day. Reappointment is only possible if the person is fully exonerated of all charges. The Bill covers ministers at the Union, State, and Union Territory levels.
Supporters argue that the Bill is inspired by Supreme Court pronouncements on constitutional morality and integrity in governance. Cases such as S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) and Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) have stressed that those with serious criminal charges should not be entrusted with ministerial responsibilities. Recent high-profile cases—like those of former Tamil Nadu minister V. Senthil Balaji and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, both of whom resigned after lengthy legal battles and bail restrictions—have only heightened calls for reform.
But critics warn that the Bill’s approach is fraught with danger. By linking removal from office to 30 days of arrest, rather than a judicial finding of guilt or even the framing of charges, the law risks being used as a partisan weapon. As The Leaflet notes, “Such a rule would most likely become a weapon in the hands of the executive, disproportionately targeting opposition ministers, especially in states ruled by rival parties.” With nearly half of the provisions in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, carrying punishments of five years or more, the scope for arbitrary or politically motivated arrests is vast.
Many legal observers and opposition leaders have called for a more balanced approach, such as fast-tracked trials for lawmakers, stricter disclosure requirements, and disqualification only upon the framing of charges. The Law Commission and the Election Commission have both previously recommended that disqualification should kick in when a court frames charges for offences punishable by five years or more—a step that involves judicial scrutiny and protects against executive overreach.
The Bill’s passage is far from certain. The ruling alliance lacks the two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments, and the opposition is firmly opposed. Some critics see the Bill as a narrative-setting device, allowing the government to project itself as tough on corruption while painting opponents as obstructionist. Others point to ongoing problems with the anti-defection law and the perfunctory disclosure of criminal antecedents by political parties, which continue to undermine public trust in the system.
As India grapples with the twin challenges of empowering its regions and cleaning up its politics, the events of September 26, 2025, serve as a reminder that constitutional reform is only as effective as the will and integrity of those entrusted to carry it out. The road to genuine accountability and inclusive development remains long, but the debates now underway may yet shape the future of Indian democracy.
