Relevance for UPSC: Important for GS Paper II (Polity & Governance) — focuses on constitutional amendments, executive accountability, and federal relations.

The proposed Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, has stirred intense debate in Parliament and across the political spectrum. The Bill seeks to establish ethical standards for ministers by introducing provisions for their automatic removal from office if they are detained or arrested in connection with serious criminal offences.

While the government has projected the Bill as a step toward clean governance, critics warn that it could undermine constitutional principles, particularly the presumption of innocence and federal balance.

What the Bill Proposes

• The amendment seeks to modify Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution, which deal with the appointment and tenure of Union and State Ministers.
  
• It mandates that if a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister is detained or remains in custody for 30 consecutive days for an offence punishable with five years or more of imprisonment, they shall automatically cease to hold office.
  
• The government justifies this provision as necessary to uphold ethical standards in public life and restore public trust in governance.
  
• It also extends to Union Territories where provisions similar to those for State Ministers apply.
  

Why the Bill Is Contentious

1. Presumption of Innocence at Risk:
   The most debated aspect is that removal would occur upon arrest, not conviction. Legal experts argue that this contradicts the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, enshrined in Indian criminal jurisprudence.
   
2. Scope for Political Misuse:
   Critics fear the law could be weaponised for political vendetta — arrests during investigations could be used to unseat political rivals, even before trial or judicial scrutiny.
   
3. Federalism Concerns:
   Since the Bill also applies to State governments, several Chief Ministers have warned that it might erode state autonomy, allowing the Union government to indirectly influence or destabilise opposition-led States.
   
4. Ambiguities in Implementation:
   There is uncertainty over who determines whether a detention qualifies under the new law — the courts, the Governor, or the President. This could lead to constitutional friction and inconsistent interpretations.
   
5. Legislative and Procedural Hurdles:
   Being a constitutional amendment, the Bill requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and ratification by at least half of the States, since it impacts federal provisions.
   

Governance Implications

If enacted, this amendment could redefine how ministerial accountability functions in India. On one hand, it could enhance ethical governance by setting higher standards for public office. On the other, it could disrupt political stability if arrests — even politically motivated ones — become grounds for automatic removal.

The amendment also raises a broader philosophical question: Should the right to govern depend on mere allegations or only on proven guilt? The balance between public morality and constitutional justice will determine how this law is remembered.

Important Terms

1. Constitutional Amendment:
   A formal change to the Constitution, requiring a special majority in Parliament and, in some cases, ratification by States.
   
2. Articles 75 and 164:
   These articles govern the appointment, tenure, and responsibilities of Ministers at the Union and State levels respectively.
   
3. Presumption of Innocence:
   A legal principle that assumes a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty by a competent court.
   
4. Federalism:
   A system of governance in which power is divided between the central government and the states to ensure decentralisation.
   
5. Ethical Governance:
   Governance rooted in transparency, accountability, and integrity — aimed at upholding public trust in democratic institutions.
   
6. Two-Thirds Majority:
   The special voting threshold required in Parliament to amend the Constitution — two-thirds of members present and voting.
   

Why It Matters

For citizens, this Bill raises a fundamental issue: how to ensure clean governance without compromising democratic rights and political freedoms. While people demand accountability from their leaders, they also expect fairness and protection from arbitrary political action.

The debate around this amendment is, therefore, not just legal — it’s about the kind of democracy India aspires to be: one that is ethical yet just, decisive yet democratic.

Key Takeaways

• The Bill seeks to ensure moral integrity in governance by removing ministers facing serious criminal charges.
  
• Critics argue that it risks undermining due process, state autonomy, and federal balance.
  
• Implementation challenges and scope for misuse make it one of the most debated amendments in recent years.
  
• It highlights the continuing tension between clean politics and constitutional safeguards.
  

One-Line Wrap: The Amendment Bill aims for clean politics, but its real test lies in balancing accountability with fairness and federal harmony.

UPSC Mains Question:
The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill seeks to strengthen ethical governance but raises key questions on justice and federal balance. Discuss.