Latest news with #130thAmendment)Bill
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Bill will sound death knell for democracy: VCK president Thol Thirumavalavan
CHENNAI: VCK president and Chidambaram MP Thol Thirumavalavan on Thursday urged DMK president and Chief Minister MK Stalin to take the lead in uniting democratic forces across the country and even consider a nationwide bandh to oppose the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill and two other Bills introduced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Lok Sabha. In a statement, Thirumavalavan described the Bill, which seeks to remove the prime minister or chief ministers from office if they are arrested on serious charges and remain in custody for 30 consecutive days, as a 'fascist conspiracy' that bypasses parliamentary norms and poses a direct assault on the Constitution. 'If passed, these Bills will sound the death knell for parliamentary democracy,' he said, accusing the BJP-led union government of misusing central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax department, and CBI for political vendetta. Similarly. Tamilaga Valvurimai Katchi president and Panruti MLA T Velmurugan, another ally of the DMK, also opposed the Bills, saying they violate principles of natural justice. 'Stripping posts on the basis of allegations exposes the authoritarian intent of the union government,' he said, demanding their withdrawal. He urged all political parties and democratic organisations to unite in opposing the Bills.
Deccan Herald
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
Sweeping powers and the morality ruse
The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill and associated bills that were tabled in Parliament on Wednesday violate the principles that underlie the Constitution and the democratic polity. These bills are ill-conceived and are liable to be unfairly implemented. They seek to punish a person before the crime is proved, as they provide for the removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and ministers from office if they are arrested or detained in custody for 30 consecutive days for offences that attract a jail term of at least five years. The bills have been sent to a joint committee of parliament which is to return them before the next session so that they can be enacted at the in public office is important but it cannot be pursued by circumventing due process. The bills, if enacted, will become another weapon in the hands of the Central government to target Opposition parties and their ministers. Central investigative agencies, including the CBI and the ED, are now being used to hound politicians in the Opposition camp. At present, the law and its existing processes provide them cover but the proposed laws can remove all defences, exposing anyone to politically motivated, vindictive detention. These will be the new Article 356, without its safeguards and procedures, enabling the Central government to destabilise state governments. The bills are out of tune with the essential norms of parliamentary democracy and deal a blow to constitutional federalism. They challenge the separation of powers between the organs of state and give executive agencies unfettered power to dismiss elected government has sought to justify the bills on the ground of public interest and the need for elected representatives to be honest and above suspicion. But going by the Narendra Modi government's record, these ethical and moral arguments would be mere excuses for targeted actions against the opponents. Long-drawn legal processes and low rates of conviction may have prompted the government to explore quicker ways to get at its political opponents. The bills are not aimed at cleansing the political system but at weakening the Opposition. They are unlikely to pass the judicial muster, even if they get parliamentary approval, because they go against the basic tenet of the rule of law that no one can be held guilty till proven otherwise. The resignation of people holding office is a political matter between them, their parties, and the people. The law should have no role to play until they are proven guilty.
Hans India
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Assam CM supports 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, calls it a step to 'restore faith in governance'
Guwahati: Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, on Thursday, strongly backed the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, calling it a "historic and transparent reform" aimed at restoring public trust in governance. The Bill, tabled in Parliament this week, mandates that if a sitting Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Minister is arrested, they must secure bail within 30 days. Failure to do so, it states, will amount to establishing prima facie legitimacy of the arrest. Chief Minister Sarma, speaking to reporters after the state Cabinet meeting, dismissed Opposition's concerns as "baseless" and asked why anyone would oppose what he termed a fair and clear-cut provision. "This Bill is not about politics; it is about accountability. If a leader is arrested, let them face the law. If they cannot obtain bail within a month, it shows the case has weight. Why should anyone have a problem with such transparency?" he asked. Taking a jibe at the Congress, Chief Minister Sarma alleged that the Opposition was "instinctively rattled" because the Bill curtails the culture of impunity enjoyed by leaders for decades. "Those who treated politics as a shield from the law are obviously nervous. But this government believes nobody is above the law -- not even the Prime Minister, not even a Chief Minister," he said. Chief Minister Sarma added that the provision strengthens democratic accountability by ensuring that cases against high office-bearers are not left in limbo. "Earlier, legal proceedings against Ministers dragged on endlessly, creating suspicion among citizens that the powerful enjoyed immunity. This amendment puts an end to that perception. It makes governance more credible," he stressed. The Chief Minister reiterated that the BJP was committed to pushing reforms that bring governance closer to people's expectations of fairness and justice. "The 130th Amendment Bill is a milestone in cleaning up Indian politics. Only those who fear exposure to the law will oppose it. For the common man, this is a victory of democracy," Chief Minister Sarma asserted.
India Today
15 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
Why Mamata is decrying Modi govt's Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill
The tabling of the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, by the Narendra Modi government in Parliament has triggered one of the sharpest political responses from the Trinamool Congress (TMC), with both West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and the party's national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee warning that the move was nothing less than an existential threat to Indian democracy and criticism is not limited to procedural objections—it is cast in terms of historical analogies, authoritarian warnings and a broader contest over the balance of power in the Republic. On Facebook, Mamata's statement was nothing short of incendiary. She argued that the bill, if passed, would destroy the very foundations of democratic India. 'I condemn the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, proposed to be tabled by the Government of India. I condemn it as a step towards something that is more than a super-Emergency, a step to end the democratic era of India forever. This draconian step comes as a death knell for democracy and federalism in India,' Mamata Mamata, the attack was twofold: first, against the Election Commission's (EC) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process for electoral rolls, which she saw as a weapon to suppress voting rights; second, against the stripping of judicial independence. 'This is not reform. This is regression—towards a system where the law no longer rests with independent courts but is placed in the hands of vested interests. It is a chilling attempt to establish a rule where judicial scrutiny is silenced, Constitutional safeguards are dismantled and the people's rights are trampled. This is how authoritarian regimes, even fascist ones in history, consolidated power,' read her placed the bill in a lineage of authoritarianism, describing it as 'a Hitlerian assault on the very soul of Indian democracy'. The attack on courts, she warned, was in fact an attack on citizens: 'To weaken the courts is to weaken the people. To deny them the right to seek justice is to deny them democracy itself.' Her conclusion was unambiguous: 'The bill must be resisted at any cost! Democracy must be saved at this moment!'Abhishek, the TMC's parliamentary party leader in the Lok Sabha, amplified the charge from a different angle. Speaking at a news conference in Kolkata, he accused the BJP of using brute force to silence dissent, even alleging that the TMC's women MPs were assaulted and heckled inside the House. 'We condemn this incident. We will take it up sternly. The BJP is perplexed and bewildered. They thought they would run the country like their own private or paternal property. We have shown them their place.'Abhishek also ridiculed the optics of Union home minister Amit Shah needing heavy marshal protection. 'The home minister, who boasts of a 56-inch-chest government, had to sit in the fourth row of the Lok Sabha being guarded by 12-15 marshals. This speaks volumes of the BJP's '56-inch or Vishwaguru' narrative,' he social media, Abhishek sharpened the attack, tying the bill to a broader pattern of authoritarian excesses. He accused the Modi government of preferring control over accountability, power over constitutional responsibility. 'The Union government, despite having the support of the Opposition parties and the entire nation, lacks the courage to reclaim PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir). It beats its chest with hollow rhetoric, but when it comes to defending India's sovereignty, protecting our borders and acting firmly against our enemies, it shows no real resolve. Instead of fulfilling its constitutional responsibility, this government is solely interested in amassing power, wealth and control without any accountability.'Abhishek connected the bill to the BJP's failed attempt to use the SIR process, alleging that the Centre had shifted tactics by unleashing enforcement agencies. 'Having failed in its attempt to misuse the EC to implement SIR, the government has now activated another 'E'—ED (Enforcement Directorate)—to bring in laws that target Opposition leaders, crush democracy and manipulate the people's mandate by toppling state governments,' he rhetoric escalated into a moral binary. For Abhishek, the bill was 'anti-people, anti-farmer, anti-poor, anti-SC, anti-ST, anti-OBC, anti-federal and above all anti-India'. He declared that 'One vote to the BJP is nothing less than selling the soul of India'.advertisementAt the press conference, Abhishek added another layer to the critique, attacking not just the bill's contents but its political intention. He described the measures as 'gimmicks' designed to retain power without accountability. While mocking the provisions on removing arrested leaders from office, he turned the proposal against its authors. 'We will be the first to support the bills. In fact, we urge the government to reduce the jail term of ministers from 30 days to 15 days [for their removal]. But the government must add the clause that if the persecuted minister is not proven guilty on the 16th day, then the investigating officers of the agency concerned and its top bosses will have to go to jail for double the time they hold the leader in jail,' he reframing the bill as an accountability test not just for politicians but investigative agencies as well, Abhishek highlighted the TMC's deeper charge: that the BJP uses state machinery selectively to suppress the Opposition while insulating itself from larger political theatre was unmistakable. While the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill introduced by Shah were quickly referred to a joint parliamentary committee, for the TMC, the symbolism mattered more than the legislative detail. By portraying the bills as an authoritarian leap—akin to 'super-Emergency' politics—Mamata and Abhishek positioned the debate not just as a constitutional tussle but as a struggle for the soul of India's effect, the TMC's line is that the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill is not an isolated piece of legislation but the culmination of a pattern: centralisation of power, weaponisation of institutions like the EC and ED, silencing of the judiciary, and intrusion into state autonomy. The warnings are grave—'a death warrant for constitutional governance' in Mamata's words, and 'selling the soul of India' in Abhishek' the bills will eventually pass, given the BJP's lack of a two-thirds majority in the Houses, is uncertain. But what is clear is that the political battle over them has already become a referendum on the future of India's federal to India Today Magazine- Ends
Hans India
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
We will make it an Act: G Kishan Reddy counters Oppn over Bill to sack jailed PMs, CMs
New Delhi: As Opposition parties sharpened their attack on the government over the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill — branding it 'unconstitutional" with "potential for misuse against political opponents", Union Minister G. Kishan Reddy on Thursday asserted that the government was determined to pass the legislation and 'make it an Act.' The Opposition has alleged that the ruling BJP intends to misuse central agencies, frame non-BJP Chief Ministers, send them to jail, and destabilise elected state governments. However, the Union government has defended the Bill, arguing that it aims to 'elevate declining moral standards' and uphold integrity in politics. The amendment empowers Governors of states and Lieutenant Governors of Union Territories to sack a Chief Minister or minister if they remain in jail for 30 days, even without conviction. Speaking to IANS, G Kishan Reddy said, 'The Bill presented will now go to the Joint Parliamentary Committee. We will make this Bill into an Act after seeking suggestions from wise people across the country, including constitutional experts, legal experts, and political leaders. Yesterday, Amit Shah presented it in the Lok Sabha, and today, he will place it before the Rajya Sabha. "However, I want to ask the Congress — what is your problem? You govern only three states. The Prime Minister is ours; we are in power in many states. If anyone should worry, it should be us. Yet, guided by ethics, we have brought this Bill.' Recalling the past, Reddy pointed to the Congress' handling of the Lalu Prasad Yadav case. 'When Lalu Yadav was facing resignation as Bihar CM, the Congress passed an Ordinance to save him. At that time, Rahul Gandhi tore it up in public. Now we will pass this Bill and make it an Act. We are committed to bringing ethics and maintaining integrity in politics,' he said. On Wednesday, Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three pivotal Bills in the Lok Sabha, including the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025. The proposed legislation mandates the removal of Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and Union Ministers if arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a punishment of five years or more, even without conviction. Alongside this, the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025 were also tabled. All three were referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee following a voice vote. The Constitution Amendment Bill specifically seeks to amend Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, creating a clear legal mechanism for removal. As per its provisions, the President will remove the Prime Minister, Governors will remove state Chief Ministers, and Lieutenant Governors will remove Chief Ministers of Union Territories. If no resignation or removal order is issued by the 31st day of custody, the office will automatically fall vacant on the 31st day. However, reappointment will be permitted once the leader is released. The Lok Sabha was adjourned soon after the Bills were referred to the committee, with heated exchanges continuing across the political spectrum.
