THE CONTEXT: The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill has been introduced that would mandate the removal/resignation of the Prime Minister, Chief Minister or a Minister (Union/State) who is held in custody/detention for 30 consecutive days on “serious criminal charges” (offences punishable with ≥5 years). The proposal would amend Articles dealing with the Council of Ministers (Articles 75 and 164) and add an express disqualification/removal mechanism.
THE KEY FEATURES
1. Automatic removal/resignation trigger: detention in custody for 30 consecutive dayson specified serious criminal charges will automatically vacate the office of PM/CM/minister or require resignation.
2. Amend Articles 75 & 164: the Bill seeks to insert a ground for removal/disqualification into the constitutional provisions that govern the appointment/continuance of Union and State ministers.
3. Scope limited to “serious” offences: defined by an objective threshold (penalty of five years or more).
4. No requirement of conviction: removal is triggered by detention(not conviction), making the effect immediate once the 30-day threshold is crossed.
5. Parliamentary/legislative review mechanism: the bill is being examined by a parliamentary committee (PC) before any enactment.
CONSTITUTIONAL & LEGAL CONTEXT
1. Current law: Constitution requires that ministers hold office at the pleasure of the President (Art. 75/164) and that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Art. 75(3)).
There is no express rule now that an arrest/detention automatically removes a PM/CM/ministers; disqualification from Legislature is governed by the Representation of the People Act (e.g., conviction-based disqualification). No-confidence motion remains the political check on incumbent governments.
2. Due process / presumption of innocence: criminal jurisprudence and Article 21 protect procedural rights; removing office without conviction raises serious due-process questions (punishment prior to judicial determination).
3. Federal/structural concerns: inserting an automatic removal clause that applies to state executives could have major Centre–State and federal balance implications (invocation of central institutions and their timing could determine political outcomes).
THE RELATED CASE LAWS
1. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): established the primacy of the floor test and ruled against arbitrary executive action to remove state governments (Article 356 misuse). The judgment emphasizes that the floor of the Assembly is the ultimate arbiter of majority and restrains arbitrary central intervention — a principle that has been used to guard state governments from politically-motivated removals. Any mechanism that leads to sudden removal of CMs (or governments) will be examined against Bommai’s federal safeguards and the basic-structure doctrine.
2. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): addresses the limits of Governor’s discretion and dissolution of assemblies; relevant because the Bill’s effects on state governments (and possible use of Governor/Centre tools) will be reviewed in light of precedents restricting arbitrary dissolutions and requiring objective justification.
3. Kihoto Holohan v. Zachillhu (1992) and other Tenth-Schedule decisions: not directly on removal on arrest, but the Court has repeatedly examined when legislative provisions intersect with constitutional protections (e.g., judicial review of legislative exclusions). Any amendment that curtails judicial review or displaces constitutional safeguards would face scrutiny.
4. Basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati): any constitutional amendment that alters essential features of the Constitution (e.g., federalism, separation of powers, rule of law) is open to challenge; automatic removal of heads of government without conviction could be argued to impinge on those basic features.
WHY THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT
1. Recent high-profile arrests/detentions of incumbents: the arrest and custody of a sitting Chief Minister (Arvind Kejriwal — first sitting CM to be arrested in modern India, March 2024) and prosecutions/investigations of other senior leaders have intensified the debate on whether jailed leaders can/should continue to hold executive office.
2. Historical instances of jailed leaders / convictions— former Chief Ministers (Lalu Prasad Yadav, Jayalalithaa, Om Prakash Chautala, Hemant Soren at times) have faced prosecution/arrest or conviction; occasionally governance continued via proxies or interim arrangements (e.g., Lalu temporarily transferred power to family members). Those episodes are cited by both proponents (to show governance damage) and opponents.
NEGATIVE EFFECTS / RISKS FACTORS
1. Violation of presumption of innocence & rule of law: Removing officials without conviction penalises before guilt is established; this runs counter to basic criminal-law principles and Article 21 jurisprudence.
2. High potential for political misuse / destabilisation: Because detention decisions frequently follow police/ED/CBI actions that can be politically contentious, an automatic-removal rule could be used to topple opposition governments or force resignations by orchestrating detentions or extending custody.
3. Undermining federalism & Centre–State relations: State governments may be destabilised not by assembly votes but by criminal proceedings (possibly led by central agencies).
4. Administrative paralysis & governance gaps: Sudden removal of a head (PM/CM) or key ministers can create leadership vacuums; projects and decisions may stall. Proponents cite “governance from jail” as a problem; opponents say formal mechanisms (floor tests, temporary acting arrangements) already address continuity. Recent reporting noted disruption to administration when leaders were detained.
5. Disproportionate effect on political representation: Voters who elected a leader may lose their chosen representative’s leadership due to pre-conviction detention — raises normative questions about electoral mandate and representation.
6. Legal vulnerability / litigation over scope and procedure: Ambiguities (what counts as “detention”, exceptions for preventive custody, judicial custody vs. police remand, definition of “serious offences”) will generate immediate litigation, delaying clarity and creating constitutional churn.
HOW COURTS ARE LIKELY TO ANALYSE SUCH A LAW
1. Justiciability & Basic Structure— challenge that the amendment violates basic features (federalism, judicial review, separation of powers). Kesavananda + Bommai line will be central.
2. Due Process & Article 21— whether automatic removal without trial violates personal liberty and fair procedure.
3. Scope & overbreadth— whether the law is overbroad (covers preventive detention or minor procedural custody) and if so, struck down as disproportionate.
4. Interpretation of “detention” & exceptions— courts will parse whether judicial custody counts differently from political detention; whether attachment to investigation vs. conviction should be distinguished.
ALTERNATIVES SAFEGUARDS
1. Suspend from office (not automatic permanent removal)pending final decision — a limited, reviewable suspension during long custody periods.
2. Require conviction (or conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction) for automatic disqualification— aligns with Representation of the People Act practice and reduces risk of politicised removals.
3. Fast-track special benches for cases involving incumbents— judicial speedier disposal to avoid long pre-trial custody becoming a de-facto removal tool.
4. Clear procedural protections in the Bill— carveouts for preventive custody, judicial oversight for the 30-day rule, independent review board before automatic removal.
CONCLUSION
The draft amendment responds to a legitimate public concern — governance while a leader is detained — but it raises serious constitutional, rule-of-law and federalism risks because it effects removal on detention (not conviction). Careful drafting (clear definitions, judicial safeguards, suspension rather than permanent removal, speedy trial mechanisms) is essential if the reform is to strengthen accountability without undermining procedural fairness or federal balance.
Spread the Word
