On August 20, 2025, the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 was introduced to amend the Constitution of India to enable the removal of high government officials who have been arrested and are in custody for serious crimes.
The bill would amend several provisions in the constitution and establish a constitutional mechanism to remove “individuals holding important constitutional positions, such as the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers of the Central and State Governments” who have been arrested and are in jail for a serious crime and therefore “cannot run the government.”
The bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha, India’s lower chamber of parliament, by Union Home and Cooperation Minister Shri Amit Shah. It has been referred to an ad-hoc joint parliamentary committee that includes members from both houses of parliament.
According to the government, the legislation is necessary to maintain the public’s trust and because there is no current procedure to remove a minister due to serious crime. As stated in the “objects and reasons” section of the bill:
- A Minister, who is facing allegation of serious criminal offences, arrested and detained in custody, may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance and eventually diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people in him.
- There is, however, no provision under the Constitution for removal of a Minister who is arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges.
The bill reportedly was introduced in response to political controversies, including of the case of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who did not resign even after he was arrested last year for corruption in a case involving liquor policy.
Main Features of the Constitutional Bill
The proposed bill would amend articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the constitution, pertaining to the offices of the prime minister and the Union Council of Ministers at the central government level, the chief minister and the council of ministers in the States, and the union territory of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The proposed provisions include the grounds for removing ministers, the removal mechanism or procedure, and a reappointment clause.
For example, Article 75 would be amended to add clause 5A, which provides for the removal of the prime minister and ministers in the Union Council of Ministers. If these individuals are arrested for offenses that carry a term of imprisonment of five years or more and are detained for 30 consecutive days, they would be removed automatically on the 31st day:
(5A) 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:
Provided that if the advice of the Prime Minister, for the removal of such Minister is not tendered to the President by the thirty-first day, he shall cease to be a Minister, with effect from the day falling thereafter:
Provided further that in case of the Prime 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 tender his resignation by the thirty-first day after such arrest and detention, and if he does not tender his resignation, he shall cease to be the Prime Minister with effect from the day falling thereafter:
Provided also that nothing in this clause shall prevent such Prime Minister or Minister from being subsequently appointed as the Prime Minister or a Minister, by the President, on his release from custody, as per clause (1).
Similar amendments are proposed to Article 164 for the removal of ministers by the governor on the advice of the chief minister and the removal of the chief minister of a state. Article 239AA would be similarly amended to provide for the removal by the president of the ministers and the chief minister of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Reaction
Union Cabinet Minister Shah said the bill is necessary to deal with political corruption. He stated its purpose “is to elevate the declining moral standards and maintain integrity in politics.” He said that “in recent years, the country has witnessed shocking instances where chief ministers or ministers continued to run governments from jail without resigning.” He also said that “the entire opposition has opposed [the bill] to remain outside the law’s ambit and run governments from jail.”
The opposition, on the other hand, has criticized the bill and questioned its purpose. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, an Indian National Congress Party leader and member of parliament (MP), stated that the “[t]he best way to destabilize the opposition is to unleash biased central agencies to arrest opposition [chief ministers] and, despite being unable to defeat them electorally, remove them by arbitrary arrests.” MP Asaduddin Owaisi similarly said the bill could be used to “topple adversarial state governments.” Others, like Manish Tewari, an MP with the Congress party, said the bill goes “against the principle of presumption of innocence” until proven guilty.
Other critics have claimed the proposal undermines the Indian Constitution, the federal structure of government, and the separation of powers. MP Owaisi, leader of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen Party, said he opposed the bill as it “went against the principle of separation of powers, making the executive agencies judge and executioner.” Asim Ali, a political observer based in New Delhi, stated that the “bill would change the federal contract in fundamental ways, including balance of power between centre and states, giving the centre enormous leverage to sabotage elected governments—and, of course, to the space for oppositional politics.”
Tariq Ahmad, Law Library of Congress
November 18, 2025
Read more Global Legal Monitor articles.
Read Law Library Reports on India.