Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025: An In-Depth Analysis for Everyone

1. Background & Introduction

On 20 August 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha, alongside two other companion bills concerning Union Territories and Jammu & Kashmir. The Bill was subsequently referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for deeper scrutiny .

2. Core Provisions

The Bill proposes constitutional amendments aimed at preventing individuals under prolonged judicial custody—without conviction—from retaining ministerial positions:

Union Level (Article 75)

A Prime Minister or Union Minister detained for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable with 5 years or more must be removed by the President on the Prime Minister’s advice by the 31st day of such detention.

If the Prime Minister fails to tender resignation, the office becomes automatically vacant from the 32nd day.

Reappointment post-release is permitted .

State Level (Article 164)

Similar provisions apply to Chief Ministers and State Ministers: they are to be removed after 30 consecutive days of custody, with removal advised by the Chief Minister to the Governor, or automatic cessation if no advice is tendered .

NCT of Delhi (Article 239AA)

Extends the same framework to Delhi’s Chief Minister and ministers under Article 239AA .

3. Intent & Rationale

According to official statements, the amendment seeks to:

• Instill constitutional morality, uphold good governance, and restore public trust in public office.

• Address a “constitutional lacuna” where officeholders could continue governing while incarcerated—often for extended periods .

• Cited cases like Delhi’s CM and Tamil Nadu ministers, who held office despite arrests, as catalysts for the bill.

4. Support & Political Justification

Proponents argue this aligns political leaders with civil servants, who face suspension on arrest.

Prashant Kishor publicly praised the Bill: “The framers never anticipated leaders so corrupt they'd govern from jail... This Bill ensures they can’t.” .

The government framed it as strengthening integrity and accountability in public life .

5. Opposition & Criticism

The Bill has ignited fierce backlash across the political spectrum:

• Democracy Under Threat: Mamata Banerjee called it "more than a super-Emergency"—a “Hitlerian assault” on democracy .

• Authoritarian Overtones: Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin condemned it as a "black bill" and a pathway to dictatorship, asserting “no trial and no conviction” undermines justice .

• Separation of Powers Violated: AIMIM’s Owaisi argued it empowers the executive to act as judge, jury, and executioner .

• Instrumentalisation Risks: Opposition MPs, including Priyanka Gandhi and Abhishek Singhvi, warned about misuse via biased arrests to destabilize rival governments .

• In Parliament, slogans erupted. They criticized it for undermining key constitutional principles like the presumption of innocence and rule of law .

  
  

6. Academic Reflections for Law Students

Constitutional Morality vs. Fundamental Rights: Does mandatory removal upon arrest violate the foundational principle of presumption of innocence?

Basic Structure Doctrine: Critics argue the Bill could breach India’s basic constitutional architecture. Scholars may question if such automatic removals dilute institutional balance .

Federalism Concerns: Coordinated federal governance may be jeopardized if state leaderships can be destabilized through non-judicial means.

Comparative Lens: Unlike civil servants, political office is rooted in electoral mandate. Does mirroring civil service provisions here erode democratic accountability?

Judicial Oversight: The Bill’s effectiveness may hinge on future judicial interpretation—will courts uphold or strike down these provisions?

7. Legislative Process

The Bill was tabled on 20 August 2025 and promptly sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). This committee allows both government and opposition suggestions before the Bill proceeds .

Conclusion

The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, marks a watershed moment—one that brings constitutional reform and democratic safeguards into sharp collision. For law students, it offers a rich canvas to explore:

• How far can the state go in curbing misuse of political office?

• Does this Bill enhance or undermine the constitutional ethos?

• Could this reshape conventions around ministerial responsibility and executive-legislative balance?

  
  

Law and politics entwine deeply here—and VIDHIGYATA readers are at the ideal vantage point to analyze, critique, and anticipate how this unfolds.