Bills seeking removal of PM, CMs facing serious criminal charges to be referred to joint committee of Parliament
Home Minister Amit Shah is set to introduce the three draft laws – The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill; The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill; and The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. The 'List of Government Business on August 20 and 21' in the Lok Sabha includes the introduction of the bill
Shah will also move a motion to refer the three bills to a joint committee of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha with a provision for submission of its report on the first day of the last week of the next session of Parliament, news agency PTI said.
Minister of Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw is also scheduled to introduce the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday.
The bill seeks to prohibit online money gaming or its advertisements, and prescribes imprisonment or fine, or both, for those offering or advertising them. It also seeks to differentiate such games from eSports or online social games.
The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill is a crucial step towards political accountability in India.
The Lok Sabha is also scheduled to resume the discussion on astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla's space mission on Wednesday. The ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament ends on 21 August.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Centre has decided to defile the Constitution by turning India into a dictatorship under PM, alleges Stalin
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin on Wednesday strongly objected to The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, introduced by Home Minister Amit Shah in Parliament, which seeks to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Chief Ministers, and Ministers of States and Union Territories who are arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. He said the BJP government at the Centre has decided to defile the Constitution and its democratic foundations by turning India into a dictatorship under the Prime Minister. 'The 130th Constitutional Amendment is not reform. This is a black day and this is a black Bill. This is how dictatorships begin: steal votes, silence rivals and crush States. I strongly condemn this Bill, which strikes at the very root of democracy, and I call upon all the democratic forces to unite against this attempt to turn India into a dictatorship,' Mr. Stalin said in a post on X. 'After the exposé of vote theft, the very mandate on which the Union BJP government was formed is in serious question. Its legitimacy is doubtful. Having stolen the mandate of the people through fraud, the BJP is now desperate to distract public attention from this exposé. To do that, they have brought in the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill,' Mr. Stalin alleged. 'The plan of this Bill is clear. It allows the BJP to foist false cases against political opponents in power across States and remove them by misusing provisions that treat even a 30-day arrest as a ground for removal of an elected leader, without any conviction or trial. This unconstitutional amendment will certainly be struck down by the courts because guilt is decided only after trial, not by the mere registration of a case,' the Chief Minister said. 'This is a sinister attempt to intimidate regional parties in the NDA, whose leaders are CMs or Ministers in various States — 'stick with us or else…' The first move of any emerging dictator is to give himself the power to arrest and remove rivals from office. That is exactly what this Bill seeks to do,' Mr. Stalin added.
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court hearing on Presidential Reference: Elected State governments at the mercy of Governors' whims
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) asked the Centre if elected State governments were at the mercy of the whims and fancies of Governors, who could fail Bills by merely withholding assent for them. A Presidential Reference Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai was testing a submission made by the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Kanu Agarwal, that State Bills would lapse if Governors withheld assent to proposed laws presented to them for approval under Article 200 of the Constitution. Presidential Reference hearing updates | August 20, 2025 'So, are Governors being given total powers to sit in appeal over the elected representatives? This way, if Bills are failed by Governors, governments formed by majority will be at the mercy of their whims and fancies,' Chief Justice Gavai quizzed Mr. Mehta's interpretation of Article 200. Mr. Mehta responded that the power of a Governor to withhold assent was meant to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary situations, especially when a State Bill frustrated the very democratic will of the nation, or violated fundamental rights, or was repugnant to an existing Central law. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal interjected to point out that if a Governor had the power to lapse a Bill by withholding assent, the same logic would apply to the President of India under Article 111. 'The President can also withhold and fail Bills passed in the Parliament,' Mr. Sibal submitted. The Solicitor General argued that a Governor had 'four' options under Article 200 — grant assent to the Bill; withhold assent to the Bill due to which the proposed law lapses; reserve the Bill for consideration to the President. But in case the Governor exercises the 'fourth' option to return the Bill to the State Assembly, which re-passes the Bill, the Governor is bound to grant assent. He could not withhold the Bill though he could refer it to the President on the ground of repugnancy. High Constitutional authorities, including the President and Governors, were presumed to act within the law and uphold the dignity of their offices, Mr. Mehta said. Governors were not 'nobodies', he submitted. They were representatives of the President, who was bound by the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, which represented the interests of the nation. 'Governorship is not a sanctum for retired politicians,' Mr. Mehta said. The Chief Justice asked the Solicitor General whether, over the years, the expectations of the Founding Fathers and Mothers regarding these Constitutional functionaries had actually been fulfilled. 'Governors and the elected Ministers of the States are expected to function in harmony, are they?' the Chief Justice queried. Justice Narasimha reasoned that Constitutional interpretation by courts could not be idealistic. Judicial review had to take into account the present day realities. Governors and Speakers were idealistically considered high offices, presumed to function within the law, but the flood of litigation said otherwise. The judge referred to the cases filed in the apex court under the anti-defection law (the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution). The Tenth Schedule was introduced with the best intentions and with ideal expectations about the high office of the Speaker, Justice Narasimha said. But views had changed over the years. 'Constitutional interpretation cannot be static,' Justice Narasimha observed. The Chief Justice said the outcome of the litigation in many Tenth Schedule cases had been 'operation success, patient dead'. Mr. Mehta enumerated instances when Governors were not bound by the aid and advice of the State Cabinet. One of these instances was the Governor's application of discretion to decide which party or political front had a majority to form a government in a State. 'We have seen how, in some cases, the Governors have exercised their discretion and end up in litigation in the apex court,' the CJI responded. The Solicitor General dismissed them as 'aberrations'. It was 'hazardous to interpret the Constitution based on aberrations', Mr. Mehta said.
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Lavrov Draws New RED LINE After EU Leaders Meet Trump
Amit Shah Vs Oppn Showdown: Bill To Remove PM, CMs Over Criminal Cases Sparks Big Lok Sabha Ruckus Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three controversial bills in the Lok Sabha, triggering sharp protests from the opposition. The bills seek removal of the prime minister, chief ministers, or ministers held in custody for 30 days on serious criminal charges. Opposition MPs, including KC Venugopal and Asaduddin Owaisi, called the bills 'anti-constitutional.' Venugopal questioned Shah's moral authority, referring to his past arrest as Gujarat's home minister. Shah said he had resigned then and did not hold any post until cleared by court. The bills, including the 130th Constitution Amendment, have been sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee for scrutiny. 54.6K views | 2 hours ago
