The Indian Parliament has been thrust into a storm of controversy this week as the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, was introduced, sparking fierce debate both inside the legislature and across the country. At the heart of the matter is a sweeping proposal: if a sitting Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister is arrested and cannot secure bail within 30 days, they must step down from office, with their removal considered prima facie legitimate. Supporters hail the move as a historic step toward accountability, while critics warn it could undermine democracy and federalism, and open the door to misuse by central agencies.
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, speaking on August 21, 2025, left no doubt about his position. He called the Bill a "historic and transparent reform" and argued that it would restore public trust in governance. "This Bill is not about politics; it is about accountability. If a leader is arrested, let them face the law. If they cannot obtain bail within a month, it shows the case has weight. Why should anyone have a problem with such transparency?" he asked, according to IANS. Sarma dismissed opposition concerns as "baseless" and suggested that only those who feared exposure to the law would oppose the measure. He asserted, "The 130th Amendment Bill is a milestone in cleaning up Indian politics. Only those who fear exposure to the law will oppose it. For the common man, this is a victory of democracy."
But for many in the opposition, the Bill represents something far more sinister. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has emerged as one of its most vocal critics, denouncing it as a "Black Bill" and declaring it a "death knell for democracy." In a strongly worded statement posted to social media on August 20, 2025, Banerjee accused the Narendra Modi government of "sounding the death knell of democracy in the name of the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill." She warned, "This draconian step comes as a death knell for democracy and federalism in India. To suppress the voting rights of the Indian citizens in the name of Special Intensive Revision, this is another super-draconian step by the Centre now."
Banerjee did not stop there. She argued that the Bill would empower unelected authorities such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)—which the Supreme Court has described as "caged parrots"—to interfere in the functioning of elected state governments. "The Bill seeks to empower the Union to intrude upon the mandate of the people, handing sweeping powers to unelected authorities to interfere in the functioning of elected State governments," she said, according to The CSR Journal. Banerjee also framed the Bill as an assault on the judiciary, warning, "This Bill now wants to finish the Independence of our Judiciary. What we are witnessing is unprecedented—the Bill is nothing short of a Hitlerian assault on the very soul of Indian democracy."
Her concerns have found resonance among legal experts, opposition politicians, and civil society. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, as reported by The Federal, warned that the Bill could destabilize state governments and undermine federalism. "In a country where criminal law is used for persecution, not prosecution, and as a tool for eliminating all opposition parties, the proposed Constitutional Amendment is also weaponizing the Constitution itself," Jaising said. She cautioned that the amendment could push the system toward one-party rule, as only ruling party ministers might remain unaffected while opposition leaders could be jailed. Jaising stressed that corruption should be addressed through fair prosecution and disqualification after conviction, not through preventive detention.
Other opposition voices have echoed these fears. DMK MP P Wilson described the Bill as part of a plan to centralize power and erode democratic norms. Congress MP Manish Tewari argued that the Bill "makes an investigating officer more powerful than the Prime Minister of India," violating the presumption of innocence and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. "This bill opens the door to political misuse by state machinery whose arbitrary actions have been repeatedly condemned by the Supreme Court. It throws all existing Constitutional safeguards to the winds. This makes the amendment unnecessary and unconstitutional," Tewari said, according to The Times of India.
The legislative process surrounding the 130th Amendment Bill has also drawn scrutiny. Constitutional expert PDT Acharya, speaking to The Federal, noted that any constitutional amendment requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament—at least 360 votes in the Lok Sabha if all members are present. With the ruling alliance holding 292 seats, passage is "practically impossible without Opposition consensus." Acharya described the Bill as "unnecessary, unexpected, and unlikely to succeed," but warned that if enacted, it could be misused against state governments. "Any government at the Centre which doesn’t like a particular state government can use this," he said, pointing to data showing that out of 193 cases filed by the ED against opposition leaders, only two have resulted in convictions.
The sudden introduction of the Bill at the end of the monsoon session has baffled political observers. Journalist Vivek Deshpande highlighted that constitutional amendments are usually circulated weeks in advance, but this draft was tabled abruptly and immediately referred to a select committee. The timing, Deshpande suggested, may have been a calculated political move, coinciding with opposition campaigns on alleged electoral malpractice in Bihar.
Amid the heated debate, some have tried to strike a more nuanced note. AAP leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia described the Bill as "positive" in intent, arguing that corrupt leaders should fear being removed, but warned of potential misuse by agencies like the ED and CBI. "The Aam Admi Party is a party of staunchly honest people, so it will always consider such rules to be good...," Sisodia told The Times of India. "However, this rule gives too much power to a ruling party... While implementing this rule, it should be noted that if the minister is not found guilty even after 30 days, it implies that false allegations were made against him. So whoever makes the false allegation should go to jail..."
The introduction of the Bill has triggered uproar in Parliament. Opposition MPs tore up copies of the bill in the Lok Sabha, and Speaker Om Birla was forced to adjourn the House amid sloganeering. AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi declared, "This government is hell-bent on creating a Police State. This will be the final nail in the coffin of elected governments. The Indian Constitution is being amended to turn this country into a police state."
As the Bill heads to a joint committee of Parliament, its fate remains uncertain. Passage will require a level of consensus that currently seems out of reach. What is clear, however, is that the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill has ignited a national conversation about the balance between accountability and the risk of overreach in India’s democracy. The debate, with its sharp rhetoric and deep anxieties, is far from over.
