New Constitution Amendment Bill: PM & CMs to Be Removed If Detained for 30 Days

In a sweeping and contentious move on August 20–21, 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah tabled three bills in Parliament, including the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, aimed at strengthening political accountability. The amendment proposes that if a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or minister is arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a minimum five-year sentence, they will be automatically removed from office—even without a conviction.

Advertisements

Under the proposed mechanism:

• The President would remove the Prime Minister;
• The Governor would remove State Chief Ministers;
• Equivalent provisions would apply to Union Territories including Jammu & Kashmir, all through constitutional amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA.

The government argues that the bill addresses a significant gap in current law—under which detained leaders can continue running the government from jail—and aligns their treatment with civil servants who lose their posts immediately upon arrest. Amit Shah has urged that the law is about accountability, not punishment, and that those who oppose it are trying to preserve privilege.

Opposition Reaction

The bill drew fierce criticism from opposition leaders. They argued it undermines democratic norms, and could be misused to destabilize opposition-ruled states through politically motivated arrests. Prominent voices include:

• Asaduddin Owaisi, calling the move a step toward a “police state” and a violation of separation of powers and federalism.
• P. Chidambaram, who termed it “extraordinary” and “patently unconstitutional,” stating that bail delays could unfairly topple elected governments.
• Congress leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, warning the bill could be used to oust leaders without trial.

Meanwhile, Prashant Kishor supported the legislation, saying it curbs governance from jail and fills a constitutional void. Shashi Tharoor, breaking from party lines, described the proposal as “reasonable.”

What’s Next

After being introduced amid a parliamentary uproar, the bills were referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further scrutiny.