“Amit Shah Tables 3 Bills to Oust Leaders Held in Custody”

A New Era of Accountability: Amit Shah Tables Bills to Remove Leaders Held in Custody

In a significant move that could fundamentally reshape India's political landscape, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has tabled three pivotal bills in the Lok Sabha. These bills aim to establish a legal framework for the mandatory removal of a sitting Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or minister if they are arrested and detained in custody for a period of 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. The introduction of this legislation, just two days before the end of the Monsoon Session, has sparked a vigorous debate on constitutional morality, good governance, and the potential for political misuse.

The Bills and Their Key Provisions

The three bills tabled by Amit Shah are:

1. The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025: This is the most far-reaching of the three, as it seeks to amend Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution. The core provision of this bill is that a Prime Minister, Union Minister, or a Minister in a State Council of Ministers who is arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a punishment of five years or more will be removed from office. The bill mandates that the individual must tender their resignation on the 31st day. If they fail to do so, they will automatically cease to hold office. The bill's statement of objects and reasons argues that a minister facing serious criminal allegations, who is in custody, may "thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance." It is also noteworthy that the bill allows for the possibility of re-appointment to the same office upon their release from custody.

2. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025: This bill extends the same principle of accountability to the Chief Minister and ministers in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It proposes to amend Section 54 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, to provide a specific legal mechanism for the removal of leaders who are arrested and detained on serious criminal charges for a continuous period of 30 days.

3. The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025: Similarly, this bill seeks to amend the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, to bring Puducherry and the National Capital Territory of Delhi under the purview of this new legal framework. This would mean that the Chief Minister and ministers in these Union Territories would also be subject to the 30-day custody rule.

The Rationale: Public Trust and Accountability

The government has framed these bills as a much-needed reform to curb the criminalization of politics and uphold public trust in elected representatives. Currently, the law provides for the disqualification of a Member of Parliament (MP) or a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) only upon conviction for a crime that carries a sentence of two years or more. There is no specific provision in the Constitution for the removal of a minister solely based on their arrest or detention.

The government's argument is that while an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty, an elected representative facing serious criminal charges and being held in continuous custody for a significant period diminishes the "constitutional trust" placed in them by the people. The new bills are intended to fill this legislative vacuum and align the accountability standards of ministers with those of civil servants, who are suspended upon arrest for a certain period.

Opposition's Concerns: A Tool for Political Misuse?

The bills have not been met with unanimous support. The Opposition has launched a strong attack, branding the proposed legislation as a "draconian" measure that could be misused to destabilize governments. Leaders from various opposition parties, including the Congress, have voiced their concerns, with some even calling it a "political conspiracy."

A key concern for the Opposition is the potential for the misuse of central investigating agencies, such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), to arbitrarily arrest and detain political opponents. The argument is that the government in power could use these agencies to target Chief Ministers and ministers of non-BJP ruled states on fabricated charges, ensuring they remain in custody for over 30 days and are automatically removed from office. This, critics argue, would be a backdoor way to topple democratically elected governments that the ruling party could not defeat electorally.

The timing of the bills is also under scrutiny. The legislation comes after several high-profile arrests of opposition leaders, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji, who chose to remain in office after their arrest. While the Supreme Court has in some cases put pressure on leaders to step down, there was no legal compulsion to do so. The new bills, if passed, would change this precedent and give a legal basis for their removal.

The Path Forward: A Joint Parliamentary Committee

In a move to facilitate a more detailed and bipartisan discussion, the government has also proposed to refer all three bills to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). This indicates a willingness to engage with the Opposition and refine the legislation. A JPC provides a forum for members from both houses of Parliament and all political parties to scrutinize the provisions of the bills, hear from experts, and propose amendments.

The decision to send the bills to a JPC suggests that the government recognizes the constitutional and political sensitivities involved. It also ensures that the bills are not rushed through without proper deliberation, a criticism that has often been leveled against the government in the past.

Conclusion: A Landmark Legislation in the Making

The introduction of these three bills marks a watershed moment in India's political and legal history. The proposed legislation seeks to address a long-standing issue of accountability for leaders facing serious criminal charges. While the government presents it as a step towards cleaner politics and upholding public trust, the Opposition sees it as a powerful weapon that could be wielded to destabilize political rivals.

The debate in Parliament and within the JPC will be crucial. The outcome of this legislative effort will not only redefine the rules of political conduct but also test the strength of India's democratic institutions. The balance between the presumption of innocence and the demand for ethical governance is at the heart of this discussion, and the final version of these bills will have a lasting impact on the future of Indian politics.