30 days in jail, and the throne is gone — India’s bold new bill promises to end the era of leaders running governments from prison.
A Historic Parliament Move: What Occurred, Why It Was Brought In, and Its Significance
On August 20th 2025, the Lok Sabha witnessed the introduction of the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, with the intention of ending the trend of leaders occupying power while in jail. The law suggests that if the Prime Minister, a Chief Minister, or any Minister is detained and kept for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges (offences punishable with five or more years), they should automatically vacate their office on the 31st day.
The government has framed this action as essential to maintain constitutional morality, integrity of governance, and public trust.It is also in response to the word of caution offered by the Supreme Court in its previous orders. In the case of Lily Thomas (2013), the Court held that convicted MPs and MLAs immediately lose their seat, whereas in the case of Manoj Narula (2014), it reminded political leaders that morality insists on excluding ministers with blemish.This bill, in many ways, converts those judicial words into constitutional law.
Breaking Down the Key Rules: How the Law Works
At its core, the bill creates a clear removal mechanism:
- Prime Minister → removed by the President.
- Chief Ministers → removed by the Governor.
- State Ministers → removed by the Chief Minister.
- Delhi & J&K (Union Territories) → removed by the Lieutenant Governor.
Even if these authorities fail to act, the office automatically falls vacant on the 31st day. A leader can return only if released and reappointed. To achieve this, the bill amends Article 75, Article 164, Article 239AA, and Section 54 of the J&K Reorganisation Act (2019).
Why India Needed This Reform: The Problem of “Jail Politics”
India has long struggled with leaders accused of corruption or other crimes who continued to influence governance while in jail. Delhi excise policy scam (2023–24), in which ministers were sent to jail but kept their portfolios, and Lalu Prasad Yadav’s fodder scam case, in which he controlled Bihar politics from behind bars, are well-known instances. Even the one-time Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa twice had to quit office because of court cases, although only after a judicial intervention.
Such episodes damaged the image of democracy. They led to a collapse of public trust, created a moral vacuum in politics, and left governance in limbo as files were cleared through proxies. By setting a strict 30-day limit, the government argues, the bill restores dignity to public office and ensures that the law and not criminals guide decision-making.
Judicial Roots: The Supreme Court’s Past Warnings
The Lily Thomas ruling (2013) ended the shield that allowed convicted legislators to continue in office by striking down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act. The Manoj Narula judgment (2014) went further, stressing “constitutional morality” and declaring that those facing grave allegations should not be ministers. The new bill pushes this line of thinking one step further — it does not wait for conviction but acts once custody crosses 30 days, provided the charges are serious.
The Hard Numbers: Criminalisation of Politics
India’s political landscape has one of the highest shares of lawmakers with pending criminal trials. According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR):
- 2019 Lok Sabha: 233 MPs (43%) had criminal cases; 159 (29%) faced serious charges.
- 2024 Lok Sabha: Over 40% of MPs elected again had criminal cases.
- State Assemblies: Bihar and UP reported over 50% of MLAs facing charges.
- Pending Cases: As of 2024, the Supreme Court noted 4,200+ criminal cases against MPs/MLAs were still pending in Indian courts.
These numbers make the bill’s intent clear — it is designed as a response to decades of unchecked criminalisation of politics.
How Other Democracies Handle It
Globally, different democracies take different approaches. In the UK, MPs automatically lose their seat if jailed for over one year. In the US, no federal law forces removal, but scandals and public outrage usually force resignations, as seen with Richard Nixon after Watergate. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, conviction leads to immediate disqualification — Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif lost office in 2017 under this rule.
India’s model is a middle path — stricter than the US, but less severe than Pakistan’s, striking a balance by using the 30-day custody benchmark.
Opposition Firestorm: Why Critics Say the Bill Is Dangerous
The bill has sparked strong criticism in Parliament. Opposition leaders say it was rushed without adequate debate. Their main concerns include:
- Misuse by ruling parties: Agencies like ED or CBI could jail opponents for 30 days to topple governments.
- Bail loophole: If a leader secures bail on the 29th day, the removal clause does not apply.
- Federal tensions: Governors, appointed by the Centre, could remove opposition CMs, sparking political warfare.
- Reappointment clause: Leaders can be reappointed immediately after release, weakening the bill’s moral purpose.
These objections suggest the law may face legal challenges once passed.
The Road Ahead: Constitutional Hurdles and Legal Tests
The bill has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). Under Article 368, it requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and ratification by at least 14 states. This makes its passage far from easy, especially in opposition-ruled states. Even if it clears the legislatures, constitutional experts expect challenges in the Supreme Court over possible misuse and Centre–State balance.
The Big Question: Reform or Political Weapon?
If passed, this will be one of the most sweeping reforms in decades. It could finally end the era of “governance from jail” and restore credibility to Indian democracy. But it also carries the risk of misuse, especially in a politically polarised country.
India now stands at a crossroads: will this bill genuinely clean up politics, or will it create new conflicts between ruling and opposition parties? Either way, it will mark a historic shift in how power is held and lost in India.
FOR MORE BLOGS – beyondthepunchlines.com
Author: Anjali Pandey
Add to favorites
