Latest news with #OneHundredAndThirtiethAmendment)Bill
Indian Express
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Centre's proposed amendment to remove ministers from office: What SC has previously said on the matter
Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced in Lok Sabha a significant constitutional amendment that seeks to remove a central or state Minister who is facing allegations of corruption or serious offences and has been detained for at least 30 days consecutively. The Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 and two related statutory amendments to reflect the proposed changes for Union Territories have been referred to a joint committee of Parliament for review. What does the amendment propose? The Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, which deal with the Union Council of Ministers, Council of Ministers in the states, and Ministers in Union Territories respectively. These provisions will have a new clause: 'A Minister, who for any period of thirty consecutive days during holding the office as such, is arrested and detained in custody, on allegation of committing an offence under any law for the time being in force, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more, shall be removed from his office by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister to be tendered by the thirty-first day, after being taken in such custody.' The removal can be reversed when the Minister is released from custody. Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister will be in the ambit of the proposed law. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, there is a need for a legal framework for the removal of a Minister arrested on serious criminal charges. Ministers facing such allegations 'may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance', which could 'diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people'. The constitutional amendment will require a majority of two-thirds of Members present and voting to be passed. What is the current legal framework, and how does the Bill depart from it? Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (RPA) legislators are disqualified from contesting elections or continuing in office upon conviction for certain criminal offences, and being sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years. The proposed amendment deals with the removal of a Minister after having spent a certain time in custody. Ministers do not have qualifications that are distinct from those of legislators (with whom the RPA deals), but they have different responsibilities. In the RPA, the yardstick for disqualification is conviction by a court. The disqualification can be stayed if the conviction is stayed by a higher court on appeal. India's constitutional scheme envisages the presumption of innocence for the accused, and puts the onus of proving the charges on the prosecution. Police file a chargesheet within 90 days of arrest, after which a court frames the charges. Trial begins after that, and can end in acquittal or conviction. In the proposed Bill, the yardstick for removal is 30 consecutive days of being 'arrested and detained in custody'. Since arrest and detention are only the preliminary step in a criminal investigation, such a yardstick raises serious questions of due process. What has been the debate on when a legislator can be disqualified? Given the serious concerns over the growing criminalisation of politics, a view has gained ground that a legislator must be disqualified even before the stage of conviction. It has been argued that the long wait for conviction defeats the purpose of disqualification. Since September 2013, only 27 sitting MPs and MLAs have been disqualified after being convicted of offences. However, constitutional principles of natural justice require a person to be given a fair opportunity to be heard before consequential action is taken against them. Also, disqualification impacts not only the rights of the legislator but also the will of the people who have elected the legislator. In its 170th report in 1999, the Law Commission of India proposed that the framing of a charge for offences punishable by up to five years' imprisonment should be made an additional ground for disqualification, which should be for five years or until acquittal, whichever was earlier. This proposal was reiterated by the Election Commission of India in 2004, and by the Law Commission in its 244th report in 2014. The Law Commission's 2014 report recommended that a legislator could be disqualified when charges were framed against them by a court, since this showed prima facie judicial satisfaction that there existed sufficient material against a person to put them to trial. The report rejected suggestions that the filing of a chargesheet by police or of a court taking cognizance of an offence against a legislator were appropriate stages for disqualification. Disqualifying a person before the 'application of judicial mind' would be 'against the principles of natural justice', and 'would mean that a person is penalised without proceedings being initiated against him', the Commission said. What has the Supreme Court said on the question of disqualification of a legislator? 🔴 A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court discussed these recommendations in a 2018 judgment in a public interest litigation. The PIL by Public Interest Foundation had sought disqualification at the stage of framing of charges for serious offences. The court stated that it could not legislate or add new grounds for disqualification beyond what Parliament had provided. It reiterated that the power to make laws on disqualification rested solely with Parliament. The court did recommend, however, that Parliament should enact a 'strong law' making it mandatory for political parties to revoke the membership of those against whom charges have been framed for 'heinous and grievous offences', and to not give them tickets to contest elections. 🔴 Earlier, in its judgment in Manoj Narula v Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court had said there is no bar against a person with criminal antecedents being appointed as Minister. However, the court suggested that as the 'repository of constitutional trust', the Prime Minister should consider not choosing individuals with criminal antecedents, especially if charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or corruption. 🔴 More recently, the SC made some observations in two cases of Ministers facing money laundering charges — one, V Senthil Balaji of Tamil Nadu, and two, then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. BALAJI was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in 2023 in the alleged cash-for-jobs scam and remained in custody for 14 months. He was dropped as a Minister after significant pressure from the Governor and the opposition. In September 2024, the Supreme Court granted Balaji bail because the trial was likely to take several years. Within days of being released, Balaji was reinstated as a Cabinet Minister. The ED urged the SC to cancel his bail, arguing that from his position of authority, he might influence the case against him. The SC observed that it had not taken into account his ministerial position, as he had resigned before his bail application was heard. Once he was reappointed after being released, the court said it was misled. In April 2025, the court told Balaji to choose between 'freedom or post' — he could either resign or risk the cancellation of his bail. Days later, Balaji stepped down, and the court allowed his bail to continue. KEJRIWAL was granted bail in the alleged liquor policy money laundering case, but the SC barred him from signing official documents, entering government offices, and interacting with witnesses and accessing files connected with the case. The court, however, made it clear that it had no jurisdiction to compel an elected leader to step down; whether he should resign was left to Kejriwal's discretion. In September 2024, the court granted him regular bail, noting that prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial would be unjust. It refrained from issuing directions on his continuance in the office. Kejriwal voluntarily resigned soon afterward.
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
TDP and JD(U) support the Bills but express reservation about several ‘grey areas' in the legislations
Two key National Democratic Alliance partners, the Janata Dal (United) and Telugu Desam Party, expressed support for three Bills that seek to remove the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Ministers from office if they are 'arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges', while also underlining reservations about 'grey areas' in the legislations. The allies hoped their concerns would be addressed during scrutiny of the Bills in the Parliament's Joint Committee. Home Minister Amit Shah moved the constitutional amendment Bills in the Lok Sabha, along with a resolution to send them to the Parliament's Joint Committee. According to sources, the allies were neither informed nor consulted about these Bills, which were circulated late on Tuesday night to Lok Sabha members. Speaking to The Hindu, the TDP's Parliamentary Party leader Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu said that these legislations are in the right direction. Listing out the 'coal block allocation, 2G spectrum allocation, AgustaWestland Helicopter procurement and Adarsh Housing scams', Mr. Devarayalu said, 'The country has moved away from the United Progressive Alliance [UPA] era, when such cases made regular headlines. Since 2014, we haven't had such cases… we may not have perfected the system but we have definitely bettered it. No Chief Minister or Minister should run the administration from jail. These legislations are in the right direction.' At the same time, he said that legislation should not be 'misused'. 'There are grey areas that need to be addressed and the Bills should be studied at length, which we believe will be done at Parliament's Joint Committee. We have to ensure that it is not misused,' he said. Secretary General and spokesperson of Janata Dal (United) K.C. Tyagi said that the legislation is aimed to ensure probity in public life. 'This should be implemented without any bias,' he said. He also rejected the Congress's claim that these Bills will be used by the government to target its own allies like the JD(U). 'No corruption charge has ever been levelled against Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. I reject the Congress's claim that the Bills are aimed at us. They are aimed at the corrupt and there is nothing wrong with it,' he said. The government had moved three Bills — the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025; the Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025; and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The Bills propose the removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers of the Centre and State governments if are arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days for offences that attract a jail term of at least five years.
