On August 20, 2025, the Lok Sabha witnessed a stormy session as Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three contentious bills: the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill 2025, the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill 2025, and the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill 2025. The proposals, tabled amid vociferous opposition protests and even the dramatic tearing up of legislation drafts, promise to reshape the future of Indian political accountability. But as the dust settles, the controversy over how these bills are being scrutinized has only grown.
At the heart of the uproar is the provision that would force any sitting minister, chief minister, or even the Prime Minister to relinquish their position if arrested or detained for 30 consecutive days for an offense carrying a jail term of five years or more. Supporters argue this is a necessary step to clean up politics, but critics see something far more sinister—a threat to the very fabric of Indian democracy.
The government’s decision to refer the bills to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC)—a panel of 31 members, with 21 from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha—might have been intended to project transparency. Yet, it has only deepened the rift between the ruling coalition and the opposition. On August 24, 2025, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) made headlines by declaring it would not participate in the committee. The Samajwadi Party (SP), another major opposition force, quickly followed suit.
"We oppose the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill at the stage of introduction, and in our view, the JPC is a farce. So, we aren’t nominating anyone from AITC," the TMC stated unequivocally, according to The Indian Express. Derek O'Brien, TMC's parliamentary leader in the Rajya Sabha, minced no words: "Modi-Shah (PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah) have turned Parliament JPCs into stunts." For O'Brien and his colleagues, the committee is less a forum for debate than a distraction from what they allege is a more pressing issue—the Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls.
In a blog post published the same day, O'Brien elaborated on his party’s stance, writing, "The All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) and the Samajwadi Party (SP), the second largest Opposition parties in Parliament, decided not to nominate any of its members to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) being proposed to examine the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill." He added, "Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) were originally conceived as democratic and well-intentioned mechanisms... However, this purpose has eroded significantly post-2014, with JPCs increasingly being manipulated by the government in power. Now... procedures are bypassed, opposition amendments rejected, and meaningful debate replaced by partisan fluff."
While the Samajwadi Party has not released an official statement, party leaders have indicated they share the TMC’s skepticism. This rare move to opt out of a JPC has left many inside and outside Parliament scratching their heads. As one unnamed opposition leader told Hindustan Times, "If they leave, more BJP and NDA MPs will be a part of the JPC. It will not serve any purpose." The sentiment reflects a deep-seated frustration with the parliamentary process, especially when the numbers seem stacked in favor of the ruling coalition.
The bills themselves are sweeping in scope. If enacted, they would mean that any minister, chief minister, or the Prime Minister could be removed from office within a month of being arrested or detained for a serious offense. The government argues this is about accountability and restoring public faith in elected officials. But the opposition sees it differently. During the heated Lok Sabha debate, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee didn’t hold back. She denounced the bill as "a step towards something that is more than a super-Emergency, a step to end the democratic era of India forever." Banerjee called it a "draconian step" and "a death knell for democracy and federalism in India." She argued the move would suppress the voting rights of Indian citizens, especially under the pretext of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
SP’s Dharmendra Yadav echoed these concerns, labeling the bill "anti-constitution, against the fundamental rights and a case of pure injustice." Both parties, along with other opposition voices, have accused the government of bypassing standard procedures by sending the bill to the JPC without broader consensus.
Underlying this clash is a broader debate about the role and integrity of Joint Parliamentary Committees themselves. Once viewed as robust mechanisms for oversight and transparency—with powers to summon witnesses, demand documents, and examine experts—JPCs have, according to O'Brien and others, lost much of their credibility in recent years. "In almost every JPC there is no consensus on the final report," O'Brien pointed out. "Whenever important amendments proposed by an Opposition MP, they are defeated in the committee by a show of hands." The implication is that the majority party can simply steamroll dissenting voices, rendering the process little more than a rubber stamp.
Past experience only fuels this skepticism. The opposition points to the JPC on the waqf bill, where NDA lawmakers allegedly ensured that dissent notes from opposition members were not fully incorporated into the final report. Only after intervention by Home Minister Amit Shah and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla was the full text of dissent included.
For some in the opposition, the current standoff is not just about the specifics of the bills at hand, but about the broader erosion of parliamentary norms. As the TMC and SP refuse to lend legitimacy to a process they view as fundamentally flawed, other opposition parties are caught in a bind: participate and risk being sidelined, or boycott and cede more ground to the ruling coalition.
One can’t help but wonder—will this boycott make a dent, or merely allow the government to proceed with even less resistance? For now, the answer remains unclear. What is certain is that the debate over these bills has become a proxy for a much larger struggle over the soul of Indian democracy, the balance of power in Parliament, and the mechanisms meant to hold that power to account. As the Joint Parliamentary Committee moves forward—minus some of the most prominent opposition voices—the country watches closely, aware that what happens next could set the tone for years to come.
With the TMC and SP standing firm, the government faces both a procedural and a political challenge. Whether the JPC can deliver genuine scrutiny or simply reinforce existing divides will be a test not just of these new bills, but of the vibrancy and resilience of Indian democracy itself.
