The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 aims to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Prime Minister, Union ministers, chief ministers and state ministers who are arrested or detained on account of serious criminal offences.

According to the bill, a Minister, who for any period of thirty consecutive days during holding the office as such, is arrested and detained in custody, on allegation of committing an offence under any law for the time being in force, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more, shall be removed from his office, by the President on the advice of the Chief Minister to be tendered by the thirty-first day, after being taken in such custody:

Provided that if the advice of the Chief Minister, for the removal of such Minister is not tendered to the President by the thirty-first day, he shall cease to be a Minister, with effect from the day falling thereafter.

Thus, in effect, the Bill says that any minister who has been in jail for 30 days for a serious offence will lose his post.

The Bill will amend Article 75 of the Constitution, which primarily deals with the appointment and responsibilities of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister.

Objective and Reasons Behind Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025

According to the proposed Bill, there is, no provision under the Constitution for removal of a Minister who is arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges.

In view of the above, there is a need to amend Articles 75, 164 and 239AA of the Constitution, for providing legal framework for removal of the Prime Minister or a Minister in the Union Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister or a Minister in the Council of Ministers of States and the National Capital Territory of Delhi in such cases.

Is there any provision for re-appointment when the minister is released from jail?

Under the provisions of the Bill, it is theoretically possible for the minister concerned to be re-appointed once they are out of prison.

“…that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent such Chief Minister or Minister from being subsequently appointed as the Chief Minister or a Minister, by the President, on his release from custody, as per sub-section (1).”

Why it is being criticised by the Opposition?

According to the Bill’s statement of objects and reasons, “A Minister, who is facing allegation of serious criminal offences, arrested and detained in custody, may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance and eventually diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people in him.”

However, some feel that the provisions of the Bill could be used to selectively target Opposition leaders, destabilising their governments in states.

Also, under the Bill, ministers are punished by losing their post simply on the basis of arrest, and not after conviction. Provisions to disqualify lawmakers convicted of various offences already exist. In Indian law, the established position is that an accused is presumed innocent under proven guilty.

Also, it went against the principle of separation of powers, making the executive agencies judge and executioner.