JPC Holds First Meeting on the 130th Constitution Amendment: Key Issues, Concerns, and Constitutional Debate

The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 held its first meeting on Thursday. The sitting marked the beginning of a contentious legislative debate, with Opposition members questioning both the intent and possible implications of the proposed changes, while the committee decided on extensive consultations with stakeholders across India.

---

Objective of the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, 2025

The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025.
The Bill proposes that the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, or ministers facing corruption or serious offence charges must be removed from office if they are detained for 30 consecutive days. The same rule would apply to the heads of Union Territories—Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, and Puducherry—through two corresponding bills.

The central idea is to ensure that individuals holding the highest executive authority cannot continue to govern while in judicial custody. The Bill also provides that if an arrested political leader obtains bail within 30 days, they may be reinstated.

---

Government’s Rationale: Moral Accountability in Public Office

Union Home Minister Amit Shah defended the Bill strongly.
He argued that the framers of the Constitution could not have predicted that future political leaders would refuse to resign even after being arrested. According to him, India has witnessed cases where ministers or chief ministers continued to run governments from jail, which undermines constitutional morality and public trust.

The Bill therefore intends to institutionalize a clear mechanism:
If bail is not secured within 30 days of arrest, the concerned leader ceases to hold office by operation of law.

---

Opposition Response: Questions on Legislative Intent and Practical Implications

Multiple INDIA bloc parties—including the Congress, TMC, Left, DMK, SP, and RJD—boycotted the JPC, stating they did not want to validate what they view as politically targeted legislation.

Inside the committee, AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi raised several objections.
He argued:

1. Under existing law, a lawmaker who is arrested does not automatically lose membership.

2. The Bill disproportionately targets ministers by removing them from executive office during detention.

3. Several statutes, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, allow detention up to 30 days easily, enabling misuse by investigation agencies.

According to Owaisi, the amendment could make elected representatives vulnerable to coercive action from agencies instead of accountable primarily to voters.

---

Committee Decisions: Wider Consultations and State Visits

JPC Chairperson Aparajita Sarangi announced that the committee decided to:

• Invite parties that boycotted the panel
• Visit states to consult stakeholders
• Seek inputs from constitutional experts, bar associations, state officials, and opposition leaders in states

The committee’s next meeting is scheduled for December 17, where representatives from the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law & Justice will brief members in detail on the Bill.

---

Relevant Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

Article 75 and Article 164

These govern the appointment and tenure of Union and State Ministers.
Ministers serve at the pleasure of the President or Governor. The Bill seeks to add an automatic disqualification mechanism beyond the current political discretion.

Article 102 and Article 191

Provide grounds for disqualification of members of Parliament and State Assemblies.
However, arrest or detention does NOT automatically disqualify a legislator unless convicted under the Representation of the People Act (RPA) 1951 for specific offences.

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 8, 8A, 9, 9A

Current law disqualifies elected representatives only upon:
• Conviction for certain offences, not merely arrest or detention
• Corruption charges proven in court
The proposed Amendment seeks a new disqualification-trigger for executive office, not legislative membership.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Provides powers to police regarding arrest and remand.
Opposition concerns stem from the ease of securing 30-day detention under these provisions, which may create scope for misuse against incumbents.

---

Judicial Precedents Relevant to the Debate

Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014)

The Supreme Court held that lawmakers facing serious charges should not be appointed ministers as a matter of constitutional morality, but left the discretion to the Prime Minister.
The proposed amendment seeks to convert this moral principle into a legally enforceable rule.

Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)

The Supreme Court ruled that MPs/MLAs convicted of offences punishable with at least two years imprisonment are automatically disqualified.
The present Bill goes beyond this, as it deals with detention (without conviction) and applies only to executive positions.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Established constitutional norms for responsible government.
The Bill’s proponents argue that running a government from jail violates these principles of constitutional responsibility and integrity.

---

Potential Constitutional Concerns Identified

1. Presumption of innocence may be undermined by penalizing detention without trial.

2. Executive accountability could shift toward investigative agencies instead of electorate.

3. The amendment may create unequal treatment: legislators remain members despite detention, but ministers lose office.

4. Possible misuse of state machinery to target political opponents.

These concerns are likely to fuel robust debate as the Bill moves through the legislative process.

---

Conclusion

The 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, 2025 has triggered one of the most significant debates on political accountability and misuse of power in recent years. While the government argues that the amendment strengthens constitutional morality by preventing governance from jail, the Opposition fears the possibility of political weaponization of arrest and detention.

With the JPC preparing for state-level consultations and expert inputs, the coming weeks will shape whether this Bill emerges as a landmark reform or a contentious instrument in the political landscape.