A Joint Parliamentary Committee has recommended key modifications to a controversial constitutional amendment that seeks to bar the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and other ministers from continuing in office while in prolonged judicial custody. The panel, while endorsing the objective of preventing what the government calls “governance from custody,” has suggested replacing the term “removal” with “suspension” and adding several procedural safeguards. The development comes ahead of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, expected to begin in late July 2026, and has reignited a sharp political debate on accountability, due process, and federalism.
The Genesis: Filling a Constitutional Vacuum
India’s Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, currently remain silent on the consequences when a sitting Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or minister is arrested and detained for extended periods on serious criminal charges. This silence has created situations where high constitutional functionaries continue to exercise power from behind bars or through proxies, raising questions about governance integrity, public trust, and the moral authority of elected leaders.
The government introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, along with related amendments for Union Territories, in August 2025. Union Home Minister Amit Shah piloted the legislation, arguing that it addresses a clear legislative gap. The Bill aims to ensure that leaders facing serious allegations cannot continue governing while in custody, thereby upholding the principle that public office demands both legal and ethical fitness.
Recent high-profile cases, including those involving Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, who spent significant time in judicial custody on corruption-related charges while holding office, brought the issue into sharp focus. Supporters of the Bill view it as a necessary reform to end what they describe as the “moral hypocrisy” of governance from jail.
Key Provisions of the Original Bill
The proposed amendment targets Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution, which deal with the Council of Ministers at the Centre and in states. Under the original draft:
- A minister (including the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister) would face removal if arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days in connection with an offence punishable by imprisonment of five years or more.
- For ordinary ministers, removal would follow advice from the Prime Minister or Chief Minister. If no such advice is tendered, the minister would automatically cease to hold office from the 31st day.
- If the Prime Minister or Chief Minister themselves are in custody for 30 consecutive days, they would be required to tender resignation on the 31st day.
- Reinstatement would be possible once the individual is released from custody.
Similar provisions were proposed for the National Capital Territory of Delhi and certain Union Territories through separate amendments. The Bill requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament for passage as it amends the Constitution.
The five-year imprisonment threshold was chosen to cover serious offences while excluding minor cases. However, critics immediately flagged that this could encompass over 140 offences, many of which may not directly relate to corruption or abuse of public office.
JPC Scrutiny and the Draft Report’s Recommendations
The Bill was referred to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee headed by BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi. After multiple rounds of consultations with legal experts, law universities, civil society organisations, and state governments, the committee circulated its draft report in early July 2026.
While the panel broadly accepted the legislative intent of preventing prolonged “governance from custody,” it made five notable recommendations to address concerns over finality, stigma, and potential misuse:
- Replace “Removal” with “Suspension”: The terms “removal” and “cease to be a Minister” were seen as carrying an unwarranted air of finality and stigma. “Suspension,” akin to service rules for government employees, is viewed as more reversible and less punitive in perception, even though the practical effect of demission of office remains the same.
- Automatic Reversal Clause: Suspension should automatically lapse upon discharge, acquittal, or if the prosecution fails to proceed within a specified timeframe. This safeguard aims to protect the presumption of innocence.
- Clear Definition and Schedule of Offences: The panel recommended explicitly defining “serious criminal offences” as those punishable with five years or more imprisonment and creating a separate schedule listing qualifying offences to bring greater precision and relevance to public probity.
- Fast-Track Courts: Cases involving constitutional functionaries should be prioritised through fast-track mechanisms to minimise prolonged uncertainty.
- Trigger Mechanism Review: While retaining the 30-day custody trigger in principle, the committee acknowledged widespread stakeholder concerns that arrest — an executive action — should not automatically trigger constitutional consequences without judicial determination of guilt, such as framing of charges.
The report notes broad agreement on the underlying problem but highlights sharp disagreements on the mechanism and safeguards. It observes that even supportive stakeholders did not defend the original formulation without qualifications.
Arguments in Favour: Accountability and Public Trust
Proponents argue that the Bill represents a long-overdue reform. They contend that allowing leaders to govern while in prolonged custody erodes public confidence in institutions and creates an uneven playing field. The measure brings uniformity across the Union, states, and Union Territories and aligns with the broader goal of curbing the criminalisation of politics.
Supporters also point out that existing disqualification provisions under the Representation of the People Act apply only after conviction, leaving a significant window during trial and pre-trial custody. By introducing a time-bound custody trigger, the Bill seeks to close this gap without waiting for final conviction, which can take years.
The emphasis on “suspension” rather than permanent removal, along with reversal clauses and fast-track courts, is presented as a balanced approach that protects due process while enforcing accountability.
Concerns and Criticisms: Due Process, Federalism, and Misuse
Opposition parties, particularly the Congress and several INDIA bloc members, largely boycotted the JPC proceedings, describing the Bill as politically motivated and designed to target Opposition-ruled states. They argue that the 30-day custody trigger is arbitrary and unconstitutional because it attaches severe consequences to arrest — which is not a finding of guilt — rather than to conviction or even the framing of charges.
Critics highlight the risk of misuse by central investigative agencies against political opponents. Stringent bail conditions under laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) often make release within 30 days extremely difficult, potentially allowing the provision to unseat elected governments without any judicial finding of wrongdoing.
Federalism concerns are prominent. Several stakeholders warned that the Bill could disrupt the federal balance by enabling the Centre to influence state politics through investigative agencies. Legal experts and civil society groups, including the Association for Democratic Reforms, suggested shifting the trigger to the stage of charge-framing by a court to better uphold the presumption of innocence.
The five-year threshold has also drawn criticism for being too broad, potentially covering offences unrelated to corruption or governance integrity. Some recommended raising it to seven years or limiting it to specific categories like corruption, bribery, and serious economic offences.
Broader Implications and Practical Challenges
If enacted with the JPC’s suggested changes, the law could significantly reshape political accountability in India. It would create a clear, time-bound mechanism for leaders facing serious charges, potentially reducing instances of prolonged “governance from custody.”
However, implementation challenges remain. Defining the exact scope of offences, ensuring safeguards against selective prosecution, and establishing fast-track mechanisms for high-profile cases will require careful legislative drafting and judicial support. The provision for re-appointment after release also raises questions about repeated cycles of custody and reinstatement.
The Bill’s passage will test Parliament’s ability to build consensus on sensitive constitutional reforms. With the ruling coalition holding a majority, passage appears likely, but the scale of opposition and potential notes of dissent in the JPC report could shape the final debate.
The JPC is expected to finalise and adopt its report around July 17, 2026, paving the way for tabling during the Monsoon Session. The government will likely push for early consideration, while the Opposition has vowed strong resistance, framing the legislation as a threat to democratic norms.
Legal experts suggest that any final law should incorporate robust procedural safeguards, independent oversight mechanisms, and clear definitions to withstand judicial scrutiny. Comparative practices from other democracies, where disqualification or suspension often follows conviction or specific judicial findings, may offer useful lessons.
The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, as refined by the parliamentary panel, represents an ambitious attempt to address a genuine governance gap. By shifting language from “removal” to “suspension” and adding reversal and definitional safeguards, the JPC has sought to strike a middle path between accountability and due process.
Yet the fundamental tension remains: how to balance the need for clean governance with the constitutional principles of presumption of innocence and federal autonomy. As Parliament prepares to deliberate, the outcome will have lasting implications for the relationship between law, politics, and public office in India. Whether the final legislation strengthens democratic institutions or becomes another tool in partisan battles will depend on the safeguards ultimately adopted and their implementation in letter and spirit.
About The Author
