Daily Current Affairs for UPSC : 30 Oct 2025/130th Constitutional Amendment Bill

Context

• The Central Government introduced the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill to amend Articles 75, 164, and 239AA related to the Union Council of Ministers, State Councils of Ministers, and Delhi’s administration.
• Referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for scrutiny.

Key Provisions

Automatic Removal of Ministers:

• A Minister (Union/State/Delhi) arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days for an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years or more shall:
• • • Be removed by the President/Governor on advice of PM/CM by 31st day, or
    • Cease to hold office automatically if advice not given.

Prime Minister/Chief Minister:

1. • Must resign by 31st day of custody, else cease to hold office automatically.

Rationale

• Seeks to uphold constitutional morality, accountability, and public trust.
• Aims to prevent Ministers with serious criminal charges from continuing in office.

Contentious Issues

Discretionary Power of Arrest:

• Arrest under BNSS/CrPC Section 41 is discretionary, not mandatory.
• Potential for political misuse—arrest can be engineered to unseat Ministers.
• Courts (Joginder Kumar 1994, Arnesh Kumar 2014) emphasised need for justification before arrest.

Detention and Bail Concerns:

• Disqualification triggered by 30 days custody is irrational as default bail arises after 60–90 days (CrPC S.167(2)/BNSS S.187).
• Bail rejection often influenced by seriousness of offence, not just legal grounds.
• Special laws (PMLA, NDPS, UAPA) have stringent twin bail conditions, increasing risk of prolonged detention.

Impact on Political Fairness:

• High possibility of selective targeting of opposition leaders.
• Judicial discretion and delay in bail decisions may indirectly cause political disqualification.

Administrative Dilemma:

1. • A Minister may face Hobson’s choice — resign to secure bail or stay and risk disqualification.
   • Creates uncertainty and instability in governance.

Related Case Laws:

Case	Key Observation
Deenan vs Jayalalitha (1989)	‘May arrest’ – discretionary.
Joginder Kumar (1994)	Arrest needs justification.
Amarawati (2004)	Not mandatory to arrest in cognisable offence.
Arnesh Kumar (2014)	Record reasons for arrest <7 yrs.
Satender Antil (2022)	Mandatory compliance S.41/41A.

Legal & Constitutional Challenges

• May violate Article 21 (Right to Liberty) due to arbitrary consequences of detention.
• Conflicts with presumption of innocence until conviction.
• Raises federalism concerns, as arrest mechanisms differ across states.

Steps to Consider

• Clear definition of “detention” and “arrest” to avoid ambiguity.
• Provide judicial oversight or review mechanism before disqualification.
• Consider longer threshold (60–90 days) aligned with default bail provisions.
• Strengthen protections against politically motivated arrests.

Way Forward:

• Ensure balance between probity in public life and protection from political vendetta.
• Implement transparent arrest protocols as per Arnesh Kumar guidelines.
• Reform special statutes (PMLA, UAPA, NDPS) to harmonize bail norms.
• Encourage independent policing and judicial accountability to prevent misuse.

Conclusion:

While the intent of the 130th Amendment Bill — ensuring integrity in governance — is commendable, its operational framework risks political misuse.
A more balanced approach, aligning with principles of natural justice and constitutional morality, is essential to safeguard both democratic accountability and personal liberty