The Indian Parliament is in the throes of a fierce political battle over the proposed 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, a piece of legislation that could dramatically reshape the country’s political landscape. The bill, introduced by Home Minister Amit Shah on September 29, 2025, mandates the automatic removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers if they remain in jail for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. While the government touts the measure as a bold step to restore morality and integrity in public life, opposition parties see it as a dangerous tool that could destabilize opposition-ruled states and undermine constitutional principles.
According to PTI, the government’s plan to set up a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to scrutinize the bill has hit a major roadblock. Several key opposition parties—including the Congress, Trinamool Congress (TMC), Shiv Sena (Uddhav), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Samajwadi Party (SP), Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)—have either declared they will boycott the panel or are strongly considering it. Their reasoning? They allege the amendment is designed to target opposition-ruled states and could allow the Centre to use politically motivated arrests to topple state governments.
The Congress party, after initially signaling willingness to join the JPC, now finds itself at a crossroads. Insiders told PTI that the party’s final decision could be communicated to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla at any moment. The dilemma is clear: if Congress boycotts the committee, it risks being painted by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as ‘soft on corruption.’ But if it participates, it may fracture opposition unity and lend legitimacy to a process it fundamentally distrusts. As one Congress leader put it, “We have to consider whether our presence will actually make a difference, or simply provide cover for a law that could be misused.”
Trinamool Congress, Shiv Sena (Uddhav), and AAP have already announced their refusal to participate, with the Samajwadi Party hinting it will follow suit. News18 reported that RJD and DMK are also firmly against joining the panel. Their collective stance threatens to leave the JPC heavily dominated by government members, raising concerns about the credibility of the scrutiny process.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju is not giving up easily. He is expected to personally reach out to Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge, senior leader Jairam Ramesh, SP’s Akhilesh Yadav, AAP’s Arvind Kejriwal, and TMC’s Mamata Banerjee, urging them to nominate members for the committee. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, meanwhile, has noted that as of September 29, 2025, no party had officially announced a boycott in writing, even as several have made their objections clear in public statements.
The controversy reached a boiling point during a heated Lok Sabha session, as reported by News18. Congress MP KC Venugopal directly challenged the moral authority of the bill, referencing Amit Shah’s own past arrest in Gujarat. "This bill is meant to sabotage the basic principles of the Constitution. BJP members are saying that this bill is to bring morality into politics. Can I ask the Home Minister a question? When he was the Home Minister of Gujarat, he was arrested—did he uphold morality at that time?" Venugopal asked pointedly.
Shah’s reply was swift: "Before I was arrested, I resigned on moral grounds, and until I was declared innocent by the court, I did not accept any constitutional position." He went on to frame the bill as a response to public outrage over corruption and a testament to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s commitment to clean governance. "Now, the people of the country will have to decide whether it is appropriate for a minister, Chief Minister, or Prime Minister to run the government while in jail," Shah said in a post on X, formerly Twitter. He insisted the amendment would ensure that “important constitutional posts such as Prime Minister, Chief Minister, and ministers of the central and state governments cannot run the government while in jail.”
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental disagreement about the bill’s intent and potential impact. The government argues that, under current Indian law, lawmakers lose their seat only after conviction in specific cases as per the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Custody during trial does not lead to automatic removal—a gap the 130th Amendment Bill aims to fill, but only for members of the executive. The government has cited global practices to bolster its case: in the United Kingdom, ministers are expected to resign if charged with a serious offence, though it’s a matter of convention rather than law; in the United States, office-holders often resign if indicted, but legal disqualification comes only after conviction; in Pakistan, the Constitution disqualifies those convicted of crimes involving ‘moral turpitude,’ and courts have sometimes barred leaders even under investigation.
Opposition leaders, however, see the amendment as a constitutional overreach that could be weaponized. They warn that the 30-day clause could be used to jail political opponents under serious but unproven charges, removing them from office while they are still under trial and have not been convicted. They point to recent crackdowns on opposition figures as evidence of how the law might be abused in practice. As one opposition spokesperson told PTI, “This is not about morality; it’s about safeguarding democracy and protecting the rights of those who have not been found guilty by a court of law.”
The stakes are high, and the path forward is anything but clear. If opposition parties refuse to nominate members, the government may still move ahead and constitute the JPC without them. Such a scenario would likely deepen political divisions, with the ruling side pushing forward while the INDIA bloc accuses it of bulldozing democratic norms. The outcome could set a precedent for how contentious constitutional amendments are scrutinized—or not—when consensus breaks down.
Meanwhile, other select committees, such as those for the Jan Vishwas 2.0 legislation and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) bills, are expected to be formed soon, with the BJP set to chair both as per parliamentary convention. But none of these measures are likely to attract as much attention—or controversy—as the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill and its proposed JPC.
As Parliament braces for more debate, the nation is left to ponder a thorny question: Should a government be run by leaders who are behind bars, even if they haven’t been convicted? The answer, it seems, will not come easily—and the political storm shows no sign of abating.
