India’s Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has long stood as a testament to the country’s commitment to democracy, justice, and the rule of law. Since its adoption on January 26, 1950, the Constitution has evolved considerably—expanding from 395 Articles, 22 Parts, and 8 Schedules to a robust 448 Articles, 25 Parts, and 12 Schedules as of September 2025. This living document, drafted by visionaries like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Rajendra Prasad, and Jawaharlal Nehru, continues to shape the contours of governance, rights, and responsibilities across the nation. Yet, as the nation grows, so do the challenges of upholding its ideals—especially when it comes to the persistent shadow of corruption in politics.
According to a recent analysis by National Election Watch, the scale of this problem is staggering. In the 2024 general elections, 251 out of 543 elected members—an eye-opening 46 percent—declared pending criminal cases in their election affidavits. This marks a steady and worrying rise: 43 percent in 2019, 34 percent in 2014, and just 30 percent back in 2009. Over the last 15 years, criminal cases among elected representatives have jumped by nearly 55 percent. The numbers tell a story that is hard to ignore, and they’ve fueled urgent calls for reform.
Enter the 130th Amendment Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025. This bill, now under the scrutiny of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), is being billed as a decisive measure to clean up Indian politics. Its central provision is straightforward yet controversial: if a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister is arrested in a criminal case punishable by imprisonment of five years or more—even during a 30-day remand or custody—they must resign. If they refuse, they will be disqualified from holding office. The government’s stated goal? To take a bold step toward ethical, corruption-free governance.
When the bill was presented in the Lok Sabha, the ruling party emphasized its intent to restore faith in the political system. Years of seeing corrupt politicians remain stubbornly in power have eroded public trust. As the government put it, “the bill’s primary objective was to take a decisive step towards clean politics.” Many citizens, weary of headlines about political scandals, welcomed the announcement. But as with most things in Indian democracy, the devil is in the details—and the debate has only just begun.
Constitutional experts and seasoned observers have not minced words in pointing out the bill’s flaws. One major concern is the potential clash with the foundational principle of the criminal justice system: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution clarify the powers of the President and Governors concerning ministers, stating that their tenure depends on the pleasure (or confidence) of these constitutional authorities. In practice, this means a minister is not automatically removed upon arrest or even during an ongoing investigation.
Legal experts worry that the bill’s approach—requiring resignation or disqualification upon arrest—could undermine due process. After all, an accused person has multiple avenues for legal relief, and courts have repeatedly held that action should only be taken after a conviction, not merely an arrest. As the article published by the National Election Watch analysis notes, “the accused have many legal options to seek relief, making it difficult to take swift action against corrupt individuals, contrary to the expectations.”
The bill also brings into sharp focus the uneven application of anti-corruption laws between government employees and elected officials. For instance, when a government employee faces preliminary evidence of corruption, they are typically suspended pending inquiry or investigation. Even if they are given the ‘benefit of the doubt’ or the prosecution fails, disciplinary action can still be taken by the department. In contrast, elected public representatives—who may similarly benefit from legal uncertainties—often retain their positions of power, even amid ongoing investigations. This double standard has led many to question whether true corruption-free governance is achievable under the current legal framework.
There’s another wrinkle: the law treats legislators and ministers differently. Members of legislative assemblies or Parliament are only disqualified if convicted under the Representation of the People Act. But if the 130th Amendment Bill passes, ministers would be forced to resign immediately upon arrest, even before a conviction. This discrepancy has sparked intense debate, with critics asking how such differences can be justified or resolved.
Despite these concerns, the introduction of the bill is seen by many as a sign that the government is finally ready to confront the problem head-on. As the article’s author—himself a former IPS officer—puts it, “While ordinary people may not fully understand the laws, those in power and political representatives who have experienced government positions deeply desire to completely eradicate the notorious corruption, even rooting it out by the toes.” The sentiment is clear: only by tackling corruption at its roots can democratic governance truly serve the people.
Of course, passing a law is just the first step. The current bill is being examined by a Joint Parliamentary Committee, which will submit its recommendations to Parliament. There is hope that a balanced and effective solution will emerge from these deliberations—one that upholds both the presumption of innocence and the need for accountability in public life.
Meanwhile, the Constitution itself continues to adapt to the needs of a changing India. Over the decades, new Parts have been added—like Part IXA (Municipalities), Part IXB (Co-operative Societies), and Part XIVA (Tribunals)—to address emerging governance challenges. The 42nd Amendment in 1976 introduced Fundamental Duties and provisions for Tribunals, while the 73rd and 74th Amendments in 1992 established the Panchayati Raj system and urban local bodies. The 97th Amendment in 2011 brought co-operative societies into the constitutional fold. Each change reflects the Constitution’s unique ability to blend continuity with reform.
As India stands at another crossroads, the debate over the 130th Amendment Bill serves as a reminder that the quest for clean politics is far from over. The law may be supreme, but its true strength lies in the willingness of leaders—and citizens—to uphold its ideals. Whether the new bill will finally tip the scales against corruption remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the eyes of the nation are watching, and expectations for justice have never been higher.
