Experts warn the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill could be misused against Opposition leaders due to strict bail conditions. They caution the law undermines democratic safeguards and is legally flawed.
The debate around the powers and responsibilities of elected leaders in India has once again come into sharp focus with the introduction of the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025.
Many experts believe that the framers of the Constitution never imagined certain situations that are now troubling the democratic process.
Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan has shared his concerns on Twitter, highlighting the potential misuse of the Bill and calling it legally problematic.
Read Tweet:
At the time of drafting, no one thought there would be circumstances where important bills would lie indefinitely in the offices of the President or Governors, without any explanation.
Nor could they have foreseen a time when jailed Chief Ministers or even Prime Ministers would continue to run governments from inside prison.
In the early decades of independence, standards of public accountability were very different. For instance, Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned as Railway Minister after a train accident, accepting moral responsibility. Back then,
“there was no question of a minister remaining in his post after being arrested.”
A former police officer explained the challenges of dealing with such complex constitutional questions from a law enforcement perspective.
He wrote,
“as a former police officer, I consider the prospect of arresting a sitting chief minister daunting. There are sanction requirements under the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior approval under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and legislative privilege if a session is in progress. These are not shields of deference, but checks rooted in the spirit of the Constitution — an arrest of a person carrying the people’s mandate must never be casual.”
The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 has raised strong objections from many legal and political circles. The Bill, it is argued, poses three serious problems.
“It unsettles the Constitution’s basic structure, it ignores judicial precedents, and it weakens the collegial sanctity of the council of ministers.”
According to the new provision,
“the Bill provides that a Prime Minister, Chief Minister or minister who remains in custody for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a punishment of five years or more, must be removed. The President or Governor is bound to act on the advice of the head of government, and if no advice is given, the office falls vacant automatically. Reappointment is technically allowed once custody ends.”
This is a major departure from the present system. Currently, legislators can be disqualified under the Representation of the People Act only after conviction. The new proposal shifts that to the stage of pre-trial detention.
This could be highly problematic, given how custody often gets extended. As the text highlights,
“as observed with several Prevention of Money Laundering Act cases, bail is constrained by the notorious twin test under Section 45. Custody is then extended by repeated supplementary prosecution complaints filed by the Enforcement Directorate, which delays the trial indefinitely. A 30-day custody trigger is no marker of guilt, but only an example of how long investigations take and the state’s power to prolong detention.”
The key concern is the near impossibility of getting bail or judicial relief within a short window. To understand this, one has to look at constitutional history.
“In A K Gopalan (1950), the Supreme Court upheld the Preventive Detention Act without assessing the fairness of the law and implied favouring state power over individual liberty. This was rightly reversed in Maneka Gandhi (1978), where Article 22 was given a liberal interpretation — any act curbing life and liberty has to pass the test of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19.”
But even with those principles in place, the problem remains practical. Legal remedies from the Supreme Court or High Courts often take longer than 30 days. This means the deadline fixed by the new Bill can expire before a court even hears the matter.
As the analysis warns,
“yet, remedies to approach the Supreme Court or high courts may take longer than the 30-day deadline in the Bill. There is no remedy for a people’s mandate once dishonoured. Reappointment cannot restore the dignity damaged in public perception.”
The Bill has another concerning aspect: centralisation of power.
“The Bill centralises power since only the PM or CM may advise removal. The collegial sanctity of the council of ministers is reduced to the discretion of one. The concern is not technical; it is constitutional. Concentration of such authority undermines the balance the framers envisaged.”
Judicial review of the President’s or the Governor’s order for removal is technically available.
“In S R Bommai (1994), SC held that while the advice of the PM to the President or CM to the Governor cannot be examined, the factual basis of action taken can be tested. Courts may therefore look at whether the 30-day custody condition was lawfully met. But that is little consolation. By the time courts decide, the elected leader is already removed and the people’s choice set aside.”
Past rulings have emphasised due process.
“In A R Antulay (1988), the Court struck down procedural shortcuts that bypassed the rights of an accused under Article 21. Removal on the basis of custody alone, without judicially tested thresholds such as framing of charges or conviction, is a constitutional shortcut.”
Experts warn that the Bill weakens the basic structure of the Constitution.
“It shifts the decisive power from Parliament and courts to the unelected executive. This erodes parliamentary democracy and the rule of law and affects a dilution of judicial review, all of which the SC has protected as part of the Basic Structure.”
The Joint Parliamentary Committee now faces a crucial decision.
“If accountability is the goal, the remedy should be tied to judicial precedents, not to the power of an investigative agency. Without such safeguards, the amendment risks making equality before law a mask for executive overreach.”
ALSO READ: 2012 Pune Blasts: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused After 12 Years in Jail
The nation faces a dilemma. While the Bill attempts to ensure that those in jail cannot govern — recalling that government officers under judicial or police custody for more than 48 hours face suspension — questions remain about potential misuse.
“So should the Bill be scrapped only because of the dangers of misuse? The biggest charge against the CBI and ED is that they are active against Opposition politicians, sparing those from the ruling party. If cases are mounted against the Opposition, and with bail conditions being stringent, it’s quite possible that the threshold of 30 days will be crossed in most cases. But this Bill fails on both counts — not only is it liable to be misused given the precedent, but it is also bad in law. As the largest democracy, we cannot afford to have such an enactment.”
Azad, a former IPS officer, served as Central Information Commissioner, Secretary, Security, GOI, and Special Director, Intelligence Bureau. Ranjan is an advocate at the Supreme Court.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Bombay High Court
