Constitutional Context
- Articles Involved:
- Article 75 – Council of Ministers at Union level.
- Article 164 – Council of Ministers in states.
- Article 239AA – Special provisions for Delhi (Union Territory with Assembly).
- Current framework:
- Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President/Governor, on advice of PM/CM.
- No explicit disqualification if a Minister faces criminal cases, unless convicted.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity , Constitution)
Proposed Amendment (Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-Third) Amendment Bill, 2025)
- Inserts a new clause:
- A Minister detained in custody for ≥30 consecutive days for offences punishable with imprisonment of ≥5 years will be removed from office.
- Removal is automatic, based on detention – not conviction.
- Minister may return once released from custody.
- Applies uniformly to Union, State, and UT Ministers.
- Aims to prevent governance being run by Ministers in prolonged custody on serious charges.
Rationale for the Amendment
- Governance Concerns:
- Ministers in custody cannot discharge duties effectively.
- Presence of tainted Ministers undermines public trust and constitutional morality.
- Judicial Delay Factor:
- Trials often take years, and Ministers continue in office while under serious criminal allegations.
- Reform Need:
- Current system allows even those with serious charges to be appointed Ministers until conviction.
- Amendment seeks to close this gap.
Legal & Institutional Precedents
- Law Commission Reports:
- 170th Report (1999) – Suggested disqualification if charges involve ≥5 years imprisonment.
- 244th Report (2014) – Reiterated same recommendation, with judicial scrutiny of charges.
- Election Commission: Supported barring individuals facing serious charges.
- Supreme Court Rulings:
- Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014): Court held there is no bar on appointing persons with criminal charges as Ministers, though PM should act as “repository of constitutional trust.”
- Emphasised moral responsibility over legal compulsion.
- More recent SC observations (2024–25) – Raised concerns on Ministers like Senthil Balaji (Tamil Nadu) and Manish Sisodia (Delhi) continuing in office despite custody in corruption/money laundering cases.
Issues Raised
- Constitutional Questions:
- Does detention = disqualification, even before conviction?
- Does it dilute the presumption of innocence?
- Judicial Review:
- Courts may need to clarify if removal is automatic or subject to review.
- Distinction between custody vs. conviction remains critical.
- Governance vs. Rights:
- Balancing need for clean governance with rights of Ministers against premature punishment.
Practical Implications
- For Chief Ministers/Prime Minister:
- Amendment reduces discretion in retaining tainted Ministers.
- Provides clear legal basis for removal.
- For Legislatures:
- Reinforces integrity in executive councils.
- For Politics:
- Likely to impact states/UTs where several Ministers are in custody due to corruption or money-laundering probes.
- Example: Senthil Balaji (TN), Manish Sisodia (Delhi), Kejriwal (Delhi).
Criticisms & Challenges
- Presumption of Innocence:
- Critics argue removal upon detention (not conviction) undermines “innocent until proven guilty.”
- Political Misuse:
- Risk that investigative agencies may misuse detention to politically dislodge Ministers.
- Judicial Burden:
- Likely to increase petitions challenging detention and automatic removal.
- Ambiguity:
- What if a Minister is repeatedly bailed and re-arrested?
- Does temporary bail reset the 30-day period?
Way Forward
- Clear guidelines to prevent misuse of investigative powers.
- Judicial safeguards (e.g., only charges framed by higher courts in serious offences to count).
- Codifying disqualification in a manner that balances clean politics with fair trial rights.
- Possible future debate on extending disqualification criteria to MPs/MLAs at the legislative entry stage.
Broader Significance
- Strengthens constitutional morality and the principle of responsible government.
- Reinforces the separation of powers by ensuring executive integrity.
- Reflects India’s democratic maturity in addressing the criminalisation of politics.
