Published Jul 17, 2026 | 5:52 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 17, 2026 | 5:52 PM
Union Home Minister Amit Shah justified the Bill, saying it was meant to be correct "declining moral standards" in politics.
Synopsis: The Joint Parliamentary Committee tasked with examining the contentious Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, has deferred the adoption of its final report, making it unlikely that the Bill will be taken up during Parliament’s upcoming Monsoon session. The Bill provides a legal framework for the removal of the Prime Minister, Union ministers, Chief Ministers and state ministers if they are arrested for 30 consecutive days.
The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the contentious Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, on Friday, 17 July, deferred the adoption of its report. The decision makes it unlikely that the Bill will be taken up during Parliament’s Monsoon session, which is scheduled to begin on 20 July.
The Bill, introduced in Lok Sabha in August 2025 alongside the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeks to provide for the removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and ministers from the Council of Ministers if they are arrested and remain in custody for 30 consecutive days in connection with serious offences punishable with imprisonment of five years or more.
Under the proposal, if a minister is still in custody on the 31st day, the Prime Minister or the concerned Chief Minister must advise the President, Governor or Lieutenant Governor to remove that minister from the Council of Ministers. If such advice is not given, the minister would automatically cease to hold office.
The Bill sets out a similar rule for the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers. Anyone in either post who remains in custody for 30 consecutive days in such a case would have to resign on the 31st day. If they do not step down, they would be treated as having been removed from office.
The Bill has evoked fierce criticism from Opposition parties. Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin termed it a “Black Bill” aimed at empowering the Centre to remove an elected Chief Minister without a trial or conviction.
Similarly, former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan alleged that the legislation was part of the Centre’s strategy to target non-BJP-ruled states through the misuse of central investigative agencies and to legitimise the removal of elected governments by keeping constitutional functionaries in extended custody.
The Bill triggered heated debate in the Lok Sabha. AIMIM president and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi described the Bill’s intent as an effort to “create a police state”.
Congress MP and former Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting Manish Tewari called the provisions “squarely destructive of the basic structure of the Constitution”.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah justified the Bill, saying it was meant to be correct “declining moral standards” in politics.
On the same day, the Bill was referred to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed examination. Opposition parties did not nominate members to the committee, contending that the ruling alliance’s numerical strength on the panel would leave little scope for accommodating their views.
As a constitutional amendment, the Bill will require the support of a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament for its enactment.
Earlier this month, the committee finalised its report ahead of Thursday’s meeting while retaining the Bill’s central framework, but recommended replacing the proposed permanent removal from office with temporary removal.
It also recommended allowing a Prime Minister, Chief Minister or minister to be appointed again after release from custody, acquittal or discharge, or if prosecution does not proceed within the stipulated period.
In addition, the committee said the provisions should apply only to serious offences punishable with imprisonment of five years or more. It also called for dedicated fast-track courts to ensure that such cases are decided without undue delay.
The report makes it clear that the proposed constitutional amendment would affect only executive office. A person removed as Prime Minister, Chief Minister or minister would continue to serve as a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Legislative Assembly unless disqualified under the Representation of the People Act.
To implement the proposal, the committee has recommended changes to Articles 75, 164 and 239AA of the Constitution, which deal with the composition and functioning of the Councils of Ministers at the Union, state and National Capital Territory of Delhi levels.
It has also suggested related amendments to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, and the Union Territories Act, 1963, which governs Puducherry.
The committee maintained that the proposed changes do not modify criminal law or dilute the presumption of innocence. It also said the existing constitutional provisions on the disqualification of legislators under Articles 102 and 191 would remain untouched.
