Clean Politics or Toppling Tool?: Bill That Allows Centre to Sack Arrested CMs

A Bill empowers the Centre to remove Union ministers, chief ministers, and state ministers in jail for over 30 days.

(Photo: Sansad TV)

A Bill tabled by Home Minister Amit Shah in Parliament on Wednesday, 20 August, proposed to give the Centre the power to remove any Chief Minister, State Cabinet Minister, or Union Minister who is facing criminal charges punishable by five years or more of imprisonment, and who has been under arrest for 30 days.

The Centre seeks these powers by introducing the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, which seeks to amend Article 75 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment and responsibilities of ministers, Article 164 that outlines the provisions related to the appointment of state ministers, and Article 239AA which outlines the functioning of ministers of UT of Delhi.

Simply put, if a minister spends 30 days behind bars in a case in which the charges carry a punishment of at least five years, they will lose their office if the Bill becomes law.

Following uproar in the Lok Sabha, the Bill has been recommended for referral to a Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Here’s a closer look at the Bill and why the Opposition opposed it in unison.

What The Bill Says

According to the Bill:

“A Minister, who, for any period of thirty consecutive days while holding office as such, is arrested and detained in custody on the allegation of committing an offence under any law for the time being in force, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend to five years or more, shall be removed from office by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, to be tendered by the thirty-first day after being taken into such custody,” it said.

It further stated that if the Prime Minister does not tender the proposal to remove the accused Minister on the thirty-first day, “he shall cease to be a Minister with effect from the day immediately thereafter.”

The Bill also applies to the Prime Minister of India in the event of their arrest.

It adds that the accused Minister can be reinstated upon their “release from custody.”

A New Clause in Article 164 and Article 239AA

Article 164 of the Constitution outlines the provisions related to the appointment and functions of the Council of Ministers in a state.

The Bill proposes to add a new clause to Article 164 of the Constitution, under which Governors would be given similar powers to remove a Chief Minister or Cabinet Minister of their respective states if they have been in jail for 30 days.

“Provided that if the advice of the Chief Minister, for the removal of such Minister, is not tendered to the Governor by the thirty-first day, he shall cease to be a Minister,” it said.

The Bill also proposes to amend Article 239AA, which provides special provisions for Delhi, the national capital.

“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, if a Minister, who, for any period of thirty consecutive days while holding office as such, is arrested and detained in custody on the allegation of committing an offence under any law for the time being in force, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term that 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 into such custody,” it said.

Opposition Slams 'Dictatorial' Bill

Following the tabling of the Bill, the Lok Sabha was in uproar as the Opposition called it “dictatorial”.

The Bill also led to an exchange between Congress leader KC Venugopal and Shah in Parliament.

While opposing the Bill, Venugopal said: “I want to ask the honourable Home Minister, that when he was the Home Minister of Gujarat, he was arrested. Did he step down citing morality?”

“I want to clarify on record that when I knew I was facing arrest, I resigned from my post before being arrested and did not hold any constitutional post while I was in custody,” Shah responded.

“The Bill is unconstitutional. I did not tear its copies, but I salute whoever did. This Bill is utterly undemocratic. How can they amend Article 75, which forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure? The cases filed by the ED and CBI are fabricated. We oppose this Bill. Union Ministers Ravneet Singh Bittu and Kiren Rijiju even pushed two of our women MPs into the well. The BJP is committing atrocities against women," TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee told the media.

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee called it a black Bill.

"I condemn the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, proposed to be tabled, by the Government of India today. I condemn it as a step towards something that is more than a super- Emergency, a step to end the democratic era of India for ever. This draconian step comes as a death knell for democracy and federalism in India," she said.