By: Business Connect Magazine
Union Home Minister Amit Shah tabled three path-breaking bills in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025, a turning point in the political scenario of India. The bills—Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025—are sought to put more responsibility on elected members, including the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and ministers in the government in the Centre and states.
The bills make provision for their resignation or removal in case they are arrested on serious criminal charges for 30 consecutive days, for which imprisonment can extend to five or more years. The decision has attracted intense controversy, with proponents terming it a move towards cleaner politics and opponents warning that it destabilizes opposition governments.
A Step of Courage Towards Constitutional Morality
The basic objective of such bills, as articulated in their Statement of Objects and Reasons, is to instill “constitutional morality” and engender public trust in the government. Amit Shah emphasized that elected lawmakers are Indian citizens’ hopes and aspirations and must act only in the public interest. A leader or minister who is facing serious criminal allegations against her/him and is in jail for a considerable duration of time could sully the canons of good governance and result in public disillusionment. The bills provide a legal mechanism to bridge this divide to ensure that leaders against whom serious allegations of crime are made are temporarily removed from the government to maintain the sanctity of public institutions.
The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, inserts a new clause (5A) in Article 75, under which a minister detained for 30 days on the basis of charges punishable with a term of five years or more must be withdrawn by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. In the absence of such advice, the withdrawal is mandatory on the 31st day. The same applies to the Prime Minister, who has to resign on being detained for 30 days. The same scheme is extended to Union Territories and Jammu and Kashmir by the other two bills, empowering Governors and Lieutenant Governors to do so.
Political Responses: Support and Skepticism
The filing of these bills, a few days ahead of the expiry of the term of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, was a surprise to political circles. The case is that the bill addresses an old problem: the lack of provisions for the disqualification of elected members accused of serious offenses pending conviction. The disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is currently possible only upon conviction for a two-year or more sentence. The new bills lower the threshold to pre-trial detention, with the aim of putting an end to criminality in politics and strengthening accountability.
But opposition lawmakers have protested, calling the bills a “draconian” bid to destabilize non-BJP governments. Congress lawmaker Abhishek Manu Singhvi criticized the bills, accusing them of allowing central agencies to target opposition leaders on arbitrary arrests, essentially circumventing electoral defeat. He referred to a “vicious circle” of uncontrolled arrests and disproportionate action against opposition leaders.
Congress Deputy Leader in the Lok Sabha Gaurav Gogoi also accused the bills of a bid to divert attention from Rahul Gandhi’s “Vote Adhikar Yatra” in Bihar, which points to suspected voter roll manipulation. Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien branded the move a “stunt” to stall Parliament, a sign of widespread opposition distrust of the government.
Consequences on Federalism and Governance
The bills have also generated controversy over the impact of these bills on India’s federal structure. The critics are of the opinion that giving powers to Governors and Lieutenant Governors to disqualify elected members can tilt the balance of power towards the central government, particularly over Union Territories like Jammu and Kashmir.
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has also generated speculations over the restoration of statehood, though no explicit statement has made this clear on what grounds this will be accomplished. The opposition is contesting that these bills would be used to destabilize democratically elected governments, particularly in non-BJP-ruled states.
The opposition, however, perceives the bills to be a much-needed reform to ensure ethical governance. The bills are in line with recent judicial activism, such as the Supreme Court’s attempts to implement practices of compelling tainted ministers to resign, such as that of Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji. Legalizing a removal mechanism based on prolonged detention, the bills aim to deter leaders from clinging to power when there are serious allegations against them and thereby maintain public confidence.
The Road Ahead: Scrutiny and Debate
The bills are to be referred to a Parliament Joint Committee for careful scrutiny, indicating the government’s willingness to go into broader consultation. But with only days left in the Monsoon Session, the rush has been criticized for shortchanging procedural norms, such as earlier circulation to Lok Sabha members. Amit Shah cited a “paucity of time” for this, but opposition protests and boycotts threaten trouble in getting the legislation through.
The passage of the bills has the capability of reshaping the political system of accountability in India, paving the way for the accountability of elected members prior to conviction. While the government presents it as a pledge to “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas” (Together with all, Development for all, Trust of all), the opposition believes that it is a well-thought-out effort to strengthen its hand. As the debate gains prominence, the country waits with bated breath to know if these bills will bring in a new dawn of governance or further political polarizations.
FAQ on Amit Shah’s Three Path-Breaking Bills (August 2025)
Q1. What are the three bills introduced by Amit Shah on August 20, 2025?
The bills are:
Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025
Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025
Q2. What is the main objective of these bills?
The objective is to uphold constitutional morality by ensuring that Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and other ministers resign or are removed if they are detained on serious criminal charges for 30 consecutive days.
Q3. What key changes does the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill propose?
It inserts a new clause (5A) in Article 75, mandating that any minister, including the Prime Minister, detained for 30 days for an offense punishable with five years or more must resign or be removed from office.
Q4. How do these bills affect Union Territories and Jammu & Kashmir?
The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill and the J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill extend the same provisions to UTs and J&K, empowering Governors and Lieutenant Governors to enforce resignations or removals.
Q5. Why are these bills controversial?
Supporters argue they promote cleaner politics and accountability, while critics claim they could destabilize opposition governments by enabling misuse of central agencies for political arrests.
Q6. How do these bills differ from existing laws on disqualification of lawmakers?
Currently, under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disqualification happens only upon conviction for two years or more. These bills introduce disqualification at the pre-trial detention stage, lowering the threshold significantly.
Q7. What has been the reaction of the opposition?
Opposition parties, including Congress and TMC, have called the bills “draconian” and a political tool to weaken non-BJP governments. They also criticized the timing and rushed introduction of the bills without wider consultation.
Q8. Do the bills impact India’s federal structure?
Yes, critics argue that granting Governors and Lieutenant Governors the power to disqualify elected leaders could tilt the balance of power towards the Centre, undermining federalism.
Q9. What happens next with these bills?
The bills will be referred to a Joint Committee of Parliament for detailed scrutiny. However, the limited time left in the Monsoon Session raises concerns about hasty passage.
Q10. Could these bills restore statehood to Jammu & Kashmir?
Although speculations exist, the J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025 does not explicitly clarify the process or timeline for restoring statehood.
Q11. Does the J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill restore statehood?
No clear commitment has been made regarding statehood. The bill primarily extends the ministerial disqualification mechanism to Jammu & Kashmir, though speculations about statehood persist.
Q12. How will this affect the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers?
If the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister is arrested for 30 consecutive days on serious charges, they must resign. This provision is seen as a bold step toward accountability at the highest levels.
Q13. What happens if the Prime Minister refuses to resign?
In that case, the President is bound to withdraw the minister on the 31st day of detention, even without the Prime Minister’s advice.
Q14. Could this lead to misuse against opposition leaders?
Yes, critics fear that investigative agencies could arrest opposition leaders on flimsy grounds, keep them in custody for 30 days, and force their removal from office—even before a fair trial.
Q15. What is the next step for these bills?
They will be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for scrutiny, though opposition leaders have criticized the government for rushing the process without adequate prior circulation or debate.
Q16. How do these bills align with recent court rulings?
They resonate with the Supreme Court’s observations that ministers facing serious criminal charges should voluntarily resign to preserve the sanctity of public institutions.
Q17. What impact could this have on Indian politics?
If passed, the bills could redefine accountability in politics by disqualifying tainted leaders earlier than ever before. However, they could also intensify political polarization if used selectively.
Q18. Do these bills apply only to ministers or to MPs/MLAs as well?
The bills specifically target ministers (including the PM, CMs, and state/UT ministers). MPs and MLAs already face disqualification under existing laws upon conviction, not during pre-trial detention.
Q19. Are there international parallels to this law?
In several democracies, lawmakers accused of serious crimes step down voluntarily to maintain public trust. However, few countries have a formal mechanism mandating automatic removal before conviction.
Q20. What is the public sentiment on these bills?
Public opinion appears divided—some citizens welcome it as a step toward cleaner politics, while others fear it may weaken democracy by allowing arrests to be weaponized against political opponents.
Q21. Why is the bill being called an attempt to enforce ‘constitutional morality’?
Because it seeks to ensure that ministers, as representatives of the people, maintain the highest ethical standards. Keeping tainted leaders in office during prolonged custody is seen as a betrayal of constitutional morality.
Q22. How does the 30-day detention clause work?
If a minister is in continuous custody for 30 days on charges carrying a minimum punishment of five years, their position is automatically vacated on the 31st day, without waiting for conviction.
Q23. Will this apply to preventive detention as well?
The bill specifically targets judicial custody in serious criminal cases, not preventive detention under administrative orders. However, clarity is expected during the JPC review.
Q24. Can a minister return to office if acquitted later?
Yes, once acquitted, there is no bar on reappointment. But the political damage and loss of office during trial could have long-lasting implications.
Q25. What is the role of the President and Governors under this law?
The President can remove the Prime Minister or Union Ministers.
Governors/Lieutenant Governors can remove Chief Ministers or state/UT ministers after 30 days of detention.
Q26. Why are critics saying this strengthens Governors and L-Gs?
Because Governors and L-Gs are appointed by the Centre, this provision gives the central government indirect power to unseat opposition state leaders through extended detentions.
Q27. What safeguard exists against misuse?
Currently, no independent safeguard has been detailed. Opposition members argue that a judicial oversight mechanism is essential to prevent abuse.
Q28. How have legal experts reacted?
Some constitutional scholars welcomed the move for cleaner politics, but many cautioned that it undermines the presumption of innocence and gives too much weight to mere detention without trial.
Q29. Does this bill dilute the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’?
Yes, in practice. Although technically the principle remains, forcing resignation based on detention before conviction contradicts this foundational principle of criminal justice.
Q30. Could this trigger more political instability in India?
Yes. State governments with thin majorities could be destabilized if key ministers or the CM are arrested, leading to resignations and possible breakdown of governments.
Q31. Why was Jammu & Kashmir specifically included?
The government argues that J&K has a history of instability and militancy, making political accountability even more crucial. Critics see it as central overreach in a sensitive region.
Q32. How are civil society groups reacting?
Some NGOs fighting corruption welcomed it, but civil liberties groups warned it could turn into a tool for political vendetta, targeting voices critical of the ruling regime.
Q33. Is this related to the larger electoral reforms agenda?
Yes, the government has pitched it as part of its broader effort to clean up politics, alongside past moves like the electoral bonds scheme (now struck down) and push for ‘One Nation, One Election’.
Q34. What is the difference between disqualification and removal?
Disqualification applies to MPs/MLAs, preventing them from holding seats.
Removal under this bill applies specifically to ministers and executive office bearers, without necessarily affecting their legislative seat.
Q35. Could this law face judicial challenge?
Highly likely. Opponents may challenge it in the Supreme Court, arguing it violates Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (personal liberty) by penalizing ministers before conviction.
Q36. Will this law apply retrospectively?
No, it will apply prospectively after enactment. Ministers already in custody before passage may not be covered unless specifically included by a transitional provision.
Q37. How is this law connected to Rahul Gandhi’s campaign?
Opposition MPs argue that the bills were rushed to deflect media and public attention from Rahul Gandhi’s ‘Vote Adhikar Yatra,’ which highlights alleged voter roll manipulation.
Q38. What does it mean for coalition politics?
In coalition governments, removing a key leader due to 30-day detention could collapse alliances and trigger re-elections, increasing volatility in parliamentary and state politics.
Q39. Does this give investigative agencies more power indirectly?
Yes. By prolonging custody through legal proceedings, agencies could indirectly disqualify leaders from ministerial positions, even before the trial begins.
Q40. How soon can these bills become law?
They need passage in both Houses of Parliament, Presidential assent, and notification. With the BJP-led NDA holding majority, they could pass quickly unless blocked in Rajya Sabha.
