In News:

• The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, represents a significant step in strengthening constitutional morality and accountability of those holding high executive offices.
• It seeks to amend Articles 75, 164, and 239AA to provide for the automatic removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers in the Union and state governments, if they remain under judicial custody for a prolonged period on charges of serious criminal offences.
• The Bill also extends similar provisions to Union Territories, including Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu & Kashmir, through amendments in relevant legislations.

Key Provisions of the Bill

• Grounds for Removal:Applicable when a Minister is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more and has been in custody for 30 consecutive days.
• Procedure:
  • At the Union level, the President must remove a Minister on the advice of the Prime Minister by the 31st day.
  • At the state level, Governors act on the advice of Chief Ministers.
  • In Delhi, the President acts on the Chief Minister’s advice.
  • For the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, resignation is mandatory on the 31st day of custody; otherwise, their office will stand vacated automatically.
• Reappointment:The Bill does not bar reappointment after release from custody, ensuring due process for those acquitted.

Rationale and Objectives

• Constitutional Morality: Upholding values of integrity in governance and preventing the spectacle of governments being run from prisons.
• Public Trust: Protecting the legitimacy of the executive by ensuring that leaders under grave suspicion cannot continue in office.
• Good Governance: Preventing misuse of official machinery by incarcerated Ministers.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons highlights that the Bill aims to keep executive positions free from “any ray of suspicion,” thereby strengthening public confidence in democratic institutions.

Challenges and Concerns

• Opposition’s Objections: Concerns about misuse of investigative agencies and politically motivated arrests have been raised. Critics argue that automatic disqualification on custody, without conviction, may undermine the presumption of innocence.
• Judicial Safeguards: The reliance on timely judicial intervention (bail within 30 days) assumes speedy functioning of courts, which may not always be realistic.
• Federal Sensitivities: Extending the provision to Union Territories, particularly Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir, may invite political contestation.

Significance

The 130th Amendment Bill underscores India’s evolving constitutional morality by mandating that executive authority cannot coexist with criminal custody. By including the Prime Minister within its scope, the Bill strengthens democratic accountability, contrasting sharply with earlier attempts at immunity. If passed, it will create a robust ethical standard for public office, ensuring that governance is not conducted under the shadow of criminality, while allowing reappointment post-exoneration to balance fairness.

In essence, the Bill reflects an effort to reconcile democratic legitimacy, public morality, and constitutional governance, thereby reinforcing citizens’ faith in the integrity of the Indian executive.