Centre to bring bills on removal of PM, chief ministers arrested on serious charges
In the case of a Union Territory, such as Jammu and Kashmir, the bill provides that a Minister or Chief Minister detained for 30 consecutive days shall be removed by the Lieutenant Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. If the advice is not tendered by the 31st day, the Minister or Chief Minister shall automatically cease to hold office from the following day.A similar mechanism is proposed for the Union Government and State Governments, where the detained Minister or Prime Minister would be removed on the 31st day of continuous custody.The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill highlights the urgency of safeguarding constitutional morality and ensuring public trust in elected representatives. It states that while elected leaders embody the hopes and aspirations of the people, there is currently no provision under the Constitution to remove a sitting Prime Minister or Minister who is arrested and detained on serious criminal charges.'It is expected that the character and conduct of Ministers holding office should be beyond any ray of suspicion,' the statement read. 'A Minister, who is facing allegations 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.'- Ends
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Lok Sabha LIVE: Bill to remove PM, CMs with serious criminal charges
The Centre is set to introduce key bills, including a Constitution amendment to enable removal of the PM, Union and state ministers arrested for serious crimes. Union Home Minister Amit Shah will move to refer the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill 2025, the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, and the J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill to a joint committee. Meanwhile, Ashwini Vaishnaw will introduce a bill to promote and regulate online gaming and e-sports. Show more Show less
Hindustan Times
15 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Online gaming bill introduced in Lok Sabha amid din over SIR issue
A bill seeking to prohibit and regulate online gaming was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday amid opposition protests over electoral roll revision in Bihar. Manish Tewari (Congress) was asked by the chair to make his remarks on opposing the bill at the introduction stage. (Sansad TV) Union minister Ashwini Vaishnaw introduced the bill as opposition members continued to raise slogans and display placards. Manish Tewari (Congress) was asked by the chair to make his remarks on opposing the bill at the introduction stage. However, he said the House should first take up a discussion on the Special Intensive Revision exercise in Bihar. N K Premchandran (RSP) also refused to speak, saying the House was not in order. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju slammed the opposition for creating disruptions, saying even school students are now mocking the parliamentarians for their conduct in the House. As the Opposition protest continued, P C Mohan, who was chairing the proceedings, adjourned the House till 2 pm. The bill prohibits online money gaming or its ads and prescribes imprisonment or fine, or both, for those offering or advertising them. It seeks to differentiate such games from eSports or online social games. The bill also calls for the promotion of eSports and online social games.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC asks whether harmony between governor, state govt exists as envisioned by Constitution framers
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether the country has lived up to the expectations of the Constitution framers that there will be harmony between the governor and the state government, besides the consultation on various issues between the two power centres. SC asks whether harmony between governor, state govt exists as envisioned by Constitution framers The observation of a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai came when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, referring to the Constituent Assembly debates on appointment and powers of the governor. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, was told by Mehta that unlike criticism made in different quarters, the post of governor is not for political asylum seekers but has certain powers and responsibility under the Constitution. The solicitor general, who continued his submissions on the Presidential Reference which raised constitutional questions on whether the court can impose timelines for governors and the president to deal with Bills passed by state assemblies, said that elaborate debates on the role and appointment of governors has taken place in the Constituent Assembly keeping in view the federal scheme of the Constitution. On Tuesday, the top court questioned the Centre and the attorney general over the long pendency of Bills passed by assemblies with governors, underscoring the limitations of Constitutional courts in situations where legislation has been pending since 2020. The top court has said it would be expressing its views only on the law and not on the April 8 decision in the Tamil Nadu case, fixing a timeline for governors and the president for acting on Bills passed by state legislatures. The top court, while responding to the preliminary objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments on maintainability of the Presidential Reference, said it would exercise its advisory jurisdiction as it was not sitting in the appellate jurisdiction. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143 to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with Bills passed by state assemblies. The Centre said in its written submission that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on Bills passed by a state assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, and lead to "constitutional disorder". On April 8, the apex court while dealing with the powers of the governor with respect to Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, for the first time, prescribed that the president should decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such a reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with Bills passed by the state legislature. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
