‘Unconstitutional, undemocratic': Opposition tears into Centre's bills to remove detained ministers
Opposition parties
, who warn it could dismantle
democratic safeguards
and weaponise the law against
political rivals
.
Leaders across the spectrum have labelled the proposal 'draconian,' 'anti-constitutional,' and a deliberate attempt to weaken elected governments.
The amendment aims to introduce a new clause in Article 75 of the Constitution — extending to Union Territories and Jammu & Kashmir through two parallel bills, the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Brain tumor has left my son feeling miserable; please help!
Donate For Health
Donate Now
Undo
Under the proposal, a Prime Minister, Union minister, Chief Minister, or state minister would automatically lose office if arrested and held in custody for more than 30 days in a case carrying a punishment of at least five years.
The only safeguard offered is that ministers may present reasons on the 31st day of arrest to avoid disqualification.
Live Events
Opposition strikes back
Priyanka Gandhi Vadra delivered one of the strongest rebukes, calling the plan 'absolutely
anti-constitutional
, undemocratic and very unfortunate.'
She argued that the bill disguises itself as an
anti-corruption measure
but in reality gives ruling governments sweeping powers.
'Tomorrow, you can put any kind of case on a CM, detain them for 30 days without conviction, and they lose office. This is against everything our democracy stands for,' she told ANI.
— ANI (@ANI)
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor stressed on the need for careful scrutiny over the bill. 'On the face of it, it's difficult to find a problem — obviously, if someone has done something wrong, they should not remain a minister. However, I don't know if there's any other motive behind the bill, since I haven't examined it in detail,' he told PTI.
Meanwhile, Congress' Rajeev Shukla also voiced suspicion that the proposal is a tool to topple Opposition-led states. 'The fear is real — Opposition chief ministers and ministers could be targeted. We hear the bill may go to a Select Committee. The battle will continue there,' he told ANI.
RJD MP Manoj Jha accused the BJP-led Central government of blurring the line between accusation and conviction. 'Wherever you can't win elections, you destabilise governments. This is a new tactic. Even the Supreme Court has cautioned about investigative agencies turning political. This bill formalises that danger,' he told ANI.
In addition, AIMIM head Asaduddin Owaisi warned that the legislation paves the way for authoritarianism. 'This bill is unconstitutional. Who will arrest the Prime Minister? The BJP wants to turn India into a police state. Power is not eternal,' he said while speaking to ANI.
— PTI_News (@PTI_News)
Kirti Azad, TMC leader, criticised the executive for overstepping its role. 'It is the judiciary's job to punish, not the executive's. This bill ignores constitutional boundaries. They don't follow the Constitution, and this proves it yet again,' he told PTI.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Letters to The Editor — August 21, 2025
Vice-President, the contest The Vice-President is expected to embody neutrality, remain above partisan politics, and uphold an unbiased stance that is free from any rigid political ideology. Traditionally, these posts have been held by eminent individuals whose contributions to society and the nation have been exemplary. By these standards, Justice B. Sudershan Reddy is a good choice. His is a distinguished judicial career. In contrast, C.P. Radhakrishnan, the NDA's nominee, is a seasoned political figure with a long record in public office, and, therefore, may not be perceived as a non-partisan choice for this esteemed role. One hopes that Members of Parliament exercise a 'conscience vote'. May wisdom guide this decision. Varghese George, Secunderabad While the Vice-President of India is also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and, therefore, has the duty to conduct proceedings in the House of Elders impartially, it was expected that a scholar with sound knowledge in the tenets of the Constitution would be elected as the next Vice-President in consultation with all the stakeholders, particularly the Opposition. Alas, it is not to be. With the ruling BJP dispensation announcing the candidature of C.P. Radhakrishnan, a hard-core member of the RSS and the BJP, and bypassed going in for a consensus candidate, we now have a situation of a contest. It is unfortunate that some in the BJP in Tamil Nadu have invoked the son of the soil line. The people of Tamil Nadu are well aware that the Union government has always been acting against their interests. One can expect Mr. Radhakrishnan to be another spokesperson of the saffron party. Tharcius S. Fernando, Chennai India-China de-escalation We do need de-escalation at the Line of Actual Control. We also need the display of strong political will at the Centre and robust diplomacy to negotiate peace with China. We must not lose sight of the economic front. We need to settle a trade deal, bypassing American sanctions and also Chinese moves. Manas Agarwal, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh Urban parks Rapid urbanisation in India has only highlighted a key issue — an insufficient number of public parks. Parks serve an important purpose of bringing people from all walks of life together and creating harmony ('Open Page, 'For urban lung space', August 17). Parks improve the aesthetic value of the area and are a major source of green cover in the urban pockets, keeping the temperature under control. According to a study conducted by Pennsylvania State University, the amount of time spent in parks and green common spaces has a direct correlation with the well-being of an individual. R. Sivakumar, Chennai
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Rahul-Tejashwi preparing stage to justify their defeat in the upcoming Assembly election: Bihar Minister Sanjay Saraogi
Bihar Minister and BJP leader Sanjay Saraogi on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) took a dig at the INDIA bloc's 'Voter Adhikar Yatra', claiming that the rally was not for voter's rights, but an exercise to justify the grouping's defeat in the upcoming Assembly election in the State. The Vote Adhikar Yatra was launched by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on August 17 in protest against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State. Addressing the press at the BJP state headquarters, Mr. Saraogi said that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, during his visit to Rohtas as part of the yatra, presented a woman named Renu Devi, claiming that the names of six members of her family had been deleted from the voters' list after SIR. However, within 24 hours, that claim was exposed as false, he said, and added that Mr. Gandhi must apologise to the people of the country. Mr. Saraogi further said that the data Mr. Gandhi relied upon for planning the yatra came from the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). 'Professor Sanjay Kumar of CSDS has already apologised in connection with the Maharashtra election figures, admitting that errors had been made. If the psephologist himself has apologised, will Rahul Gandhi now apologise to the nation?' he asked. He alleged that the RJD and the Congress had always followed the policy of 'take the votes – abandon the people'. Mr. Saraogi pointed out that in reality, both parties are preparing excuses in advance for their defeat in the upcoming Assembly election by protesting against SIR. 'Booth capturing under Cong.' The BJP leader also alleged that during the Congress's rule, vote theft was institutionalised, and many incidents of booth capturing took place. Taking a jibe at the INDIA bloc, Mr. Saraogi said it is making a mockery of the Constitution by taking out a yatra in the name of voter's rights. He also claimed that the Opposition is in panic because 'infiltrators' names' are being removed by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Making a scathing attack at RJD chief Lalu Prasad, Mr. Saraogi said the 'convicted criminal' has no moral right to question constitutional institutions. This so-called 'Voter Adhikar Yatra' is nothing but a fraudulent exercise, he added.
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Governor withholding Bill without asking Assembly to reconsider is counterproductive: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that if a governor decides to "withhold" a bill passed by a state legislature without even asking the latter to reconsider or modify the bill, it would be "counterproductive to the powers of governor and the legislative process ". The Constitution bench headed by CJI BR Gavai, presiding over a presidential reference case on whether SC can lay down timelines and procedures for the president and state governors, also questioned whether the governor can be vested with the power to permanently withhold assent to a bill. Speaking for the five-member bench, the CJI verbally remarked: "In case a governor has the power to permanently withhold assent to the bills passed by the state legislature, it would leave the elected state government at the whims and fancies of an unelected governor." The CJI further added that the governor will then have ample powers to sit over bills and withhold it for time immemorial. Speaking about the power of discretion of governors , the CJI verbally remarked "We have seen recent examples where governors have used discretion leading to so many litigations." He added the "presumption always is that those holding constitutional office would act in bonafide". Weighing in, justice Surya Kant orally remarked that the governor ought to give reasons for withholding a bill: "Otherwise how would a judicial review happen?" Live Events Justice Kant said: "If we are talking about wider powers of the governor then why this curtailment? What prevents him from returning it (to the state legislature) with the message (his objections on a bill)." Appearing on behalf of the Centre, solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a governor can withhold assent to a bill, making it "fall through" with no option to send it back to the legislature. He contended that the office of governor or president is not merely a "post man". Mehta added that a governor is "not powerless". Elaborating, he contended "an individual indirectly elected is no lesser than an individual who is directly elected". The bench queried about the "meaning" of the word "withhold" and whether any debate has taken place on "withhold" in the Parliament. The bench also verbally remarked that the interpretation of the Constitution "cannot be static". The solicitor general also argued that a governor's power to withhold is to be used rarely. " the Union of India, appointed by the president. The president is elected by the entire nation by way of the entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression," he submitted.
