Context
- Proposed by: Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Lok Sabha (Aug 2025).
- Objective: To disqualify/remove Central or State Ministers (including PM/CM/Council of Ministers) if detained for 30+ consecutive days on serious charges (e.g., corruption, grave offences).
- Constitutional Amendment: Seeks to amend Article 75, which governs appointment, tenure, and responsibilities of the Council of Ministers.
Relevance : GS 2(Constitution , Polity)
Key Provisions of the Bill
- Automatic removal after 30 days:
- Any minister detained/incarcerated for 30 consecutive days in connection with corruption or serious offences shall cease to hold office.
- Definition of “serious offence”:
- Offences attracting imprisonment of 5 years or more.
- Process of removal:
- Removal to be formally executed by the President (for Union Ministers) on advice of the Prime Minister, effective from the 31st day of custody.
- Applicability: Central & State Ministers (includes PM, CM, Cabinet Ministers, MoS).
Constitutional Angle
- Current position (Article 75/164):
- Ministers hold office at the “pleasure of the President/Governor” (effectively the PM/CM’s advice).
- No automatic disqualification upon arrest/detention, unless convicted under Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (disqualification after conviction ≥ 2 years).
- Amendment impact: Creates a new ground of removal independent of conviction.
Background & Trigger
- Case of V. Senthil Balaji (Tamil Nadu, 2023):
- DMK Minister arrested in money-laundering case; Governor dismissed him, but Supreme Court reinstated after bail.
- Exposed legal grey area: Can an arrested/detained minister continue in Council of Ministers?
- Controversy: Political misuse of arrests vs. public morality in governance.
Significance
Positive Outcomes
- Strengthens political accountability & probity in governance.
- Prevents ministers under serious allegations from continuing in high office.
- Addresses “ethics deficit” in Indian politics; aligns with SC observations in 2014 Lily Thomas & Manoj Narula cases (on convicted MPs/ministers).
- Symbolic step toward zero tolerance for corruption.
Concerns/Challenges
- Presumption of innocence: Removal after mere detention (not conviction) may undermine fundamental rights (Article 21, Article 14).
- Scope for misuse: Political arrests/detentions could be engineered to oust ministers.
- Federal friction: Could deepen Centre–State conflicts (esp. in opposition-ruled states).
- Judicial test: Likely to face challenges in Supreme Court on grounds of basic structure doctrine (independence of executive, presumption of innocence).
Political & Legal Repercussions
- Political: May be seen as Centre’s tool to weaken opposition governments.
- Legal: Will trigger debate on “ethical governance vs. due process rights.”
- Comparative practices:
- UK/US: Ministers usually resign voluntarily upon indictment or even serious allegations.
- India: No codified rule till now → hence need for legal clarity.
