The sudden introduction of the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, 2025, by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in the Lok Sabha on August 20 triggered strong reactions from opposition benches. The response was so intense that some opposition members tore copies of the Bill and threw the pieces toward the Treasury benches. What prompted such an unprecedented reaction?

The Bill seeks to amend Articles 75, 164 and Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution, which govern the Council of Ministers at the central and state levels. Its core provision mandates the removal of any Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister who is arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days for an offence punishable by five years or more in prison.

However, the Bill allows for their reappointment after release from custody. The government claims this amendment is necessary to uphold constitutional morality and public trust in governance. The Bill has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for examination.

However, legal and constitutional experts argue that the Bill fundamentally violates the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty,' a cornerstone of India's legal system and a key component of the right to a fair trial. It proposes to remove elected ministers based solely on their detention, not on conviction, thus undermining due process.

Critics further contend that the Bill is a threat to federalism and democratic principles, as it enables the removal of ministers based merely on allegations. This provision is particularly dangerous in the current political context, where central agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) can arrest opposition leaders and keep them detained.

For instance, in the last ten years, the ED registered 193 cases against politicians, including sitting and former MPs and MLAs, but secured convictions in only two cases — a mere 1% conviction rate, according to data provided in Parliament. (The Hindu, March 19, 2025)

Another major concern is the absence of safeguards against potential misuse of the Bill. The power to arrest and detain rests entirely with the investigating agencies, which, critics argue, are not politically neutral under the Modi regime.

Legal experts also highlight that the Bill conflicts with existing legal precedents. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a person is disqualified from holding office only upon conviction for a serious crime, not upon arrest. In the landmark Lily Thomas case, the Supreme Court ruled that a conviction carrying a sentence of two years or more results in automatic disqualification from holding public office and contesting elections — from the date of conviction, not the date of arrest.

Opposition parties believe the Bill's true intent is to weaponise central agencies and destabilise opposition-led state governments. Over the past decade, central agencies — all reporting to the Union Home Ministry — have repeatedly raided and filed cases against opposition leaders.

For example, before the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, two Chief Ministers — Arvind Kejriwal (Delhi) and Hemant Soren (Jharkhand) — were arrested by the ED and detained for over 30 days. While Soren resigned just before his arrest, Kejriwal stepped down only after securing bail, having spent over six months in jail.

The functioning of investigative agencies such as the ED, CBI, Income Tax Department, and NIA has often appeared politically motivated. These agencies have increasingly been viewed as tools of the ruling party to weaken the Opposition.

A report by The Indian Express (March 22, 2024) revealed that since the BJP came to power in 2014, 95% of ED cases were filed against opposition leaders. Between 2014 and September 2022, 121 prominent political leaders came under the ED's radar — 115 of them were from the Opposition. This number has only grown since. Even the Supreme Court has reprimanded the ED on account of its poor conviction rate in cases of money laundering.

Another Indian Express report (April 4, 2024) noted that 25 prominent opposition leaders facing central agency probes switched to the BJP since 2014. Of these, 23 received reprieve from investigations after joining the ruling party.

Two senior leaders from Maharashtra, both facing investigations, switched sides and soon saw their cases shelved. One is a former Chief Minister, the other an ex-Union Minister. Both are now Rajya Sabha members.

Critics argue that including the Prime Minister within the ambit of the Bill is merely symbolic. According to Article 74(1) of the Constitution, the President is bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister. While the President may request reconsideration, he must ultimately act on the advice tendered. Thus, the removal of a sitting Prime Minister through this provision remains highly unlikely.

Moreover, given the current political scenario, which agency would dare arrest Prime Minister Narendra Modi? The provision is seen by critics as a fig leaf to portray neutrality, while the real target appears to be the Opposition.

Constitutional experts note that the Bill, as a constitutional amendment, requires the support of two-thirds of the members of Parliament. The BJP does not have even a simple majority in the Lok Sabha. Therefore, it would need the backing of all its allies and a significant number of opposition MPs to pass the amendment.

In this context, introducing the Bill may serve other political objectives. According to BJP critics, it is a veiled warning to key allies, such as Chandrababu Naidu's Telugu Desam Party and Nitish Kumar's Janata Dal (United), suggesting they should not support the Opposition's vice-presidential candidate.

It is also seen as a diversionary tactic to shift media and public attention away from the "Vote Chori" controversy and the growing support for Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav during their Vote Adhikar Yatra in Bihar. Rahul Gandhi, in particular, has struck a chord with the youth, who make up more than 50% of India's population. Large crowds have been attending his rallies and meetings, which have likely alarmed the BJP.

The 130th Constitution Amendment Bill may be just the latest in a series of diversionary tactics employed by a party well known for its mastery of such strategies.

Whatever the BJP's intentions, the introduction of this Bill reveals its true political colours. Unable to amend the Constitution outright under the current political scenario, the party is allegedly adopting incremental methods to undermine constitutional democracy. As renowned journalist and political analyst Shravan Garg puts it, this appears to be a deliberate attempt to dismantle democracy, which he believes has already devolved into an "electoral autocracy."

A vibrant democracy requires a robust and dynamic opposition. Without it, democracy risks degenerating into dictatorship. The 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, as it stands, seems designed to stifle the Opposition and pave the way for one-party rule.

As the editorial in The Telegraph on August 26 suggested, "corruption requires such structural transformation as better regulatory oversight, greater accountability, and fairer investigations. Optics and laws vulnerable to prejudice cannot be the answer to this serious problem."