Constitutional Reforms & Accountability

The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, recently tabled in Parliament, proposes a mechanism to remove Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, or ministers from office if detained under preventive detention or criminal investigation for more than 30 days.

This amendment seeks to strengthen ministerial accountability and public trust in governance, reflecting concerns over political impunity and systemic delays in legal processes. It also raises questions regarding the balance of power, judicial independence, and separation of powers in India’s constitutional framework.

Core Issue / Significance

• Ministerial accountability is a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy. While Article 75 (for PM) and Article 164 (for CMs) establish collective and individual responsibility, the current framework lacks automatic removal mechanisms in cases of prolonged detention or indictment.
• The amendment intends to institutionalize a time-bound standard for office-holders facing criminal scrutiny, thereby deterring misuse of power and restoring public faith.

Provisions of the Bill

1. Detention Threshold:
   • Ministers, PM, or CM detained under any preventive detention or serious criminal charge for 30 consecutive days will cease to hold office.
2. Role of Governor/President:
   • In states, the Governor is empowered to act on the advice of the legislature or judiciary for removal; at the Centre, the President executes the process in accordance with parliamentary procedures.
3. Exemptions:
   • Detention for civil offences or minor legal disputes does not trigger removal.
   • Ministers acquitted within the 30-day period retain office.
4. Compatibility with Existing Law:
   • The amendment supplements Article 75, 164, and provisions related to Preventive Detention Acts.
   • Clarifies precedence over state legislations concerning ministerial tenure.

Analysis: Governance, Separation of Powers, and Accountability

1. Positive Implications
   • Enhances public trust: Automatic removal ensures office-holders do not exploit immunity or political clout.
   • Strengthens parliamentary democracy: Reinforces that ministers are accountable both politically and legally.
   • Deterrence: Reduces the incentive for corruption and misuse of authority.
2. Concerns and Controversies
   • Judicial Independence: Risk of executive influence over judicial procedures if detention is politically motivated.
   • Due Process: The 30-day threshold may conflict with natural justice principles, particularly in slow-moving cases.
   • Federal Balance: State governments may face political instability if the mechanism is triggered during preventive detentions in sensitive cases.
   • Separation of Powers: Critics argue it blurs the line between the executive and judiciary.
3. Comparative Perspective
   • Globally, few parliamentary democracies tie automatic removal to detention; most rely on parliamentary confidence and impeachment mechanisms.
   • India’s model would be unique in statutory preventive action on pending criminal proceedings.

Implications for Governance

• Institutional Impact: Ministers may adopt higher transparency standards, improving governance quality.
• Political Stability: Could lead to frequent cabinet changes if not carefully implemented, affecting policy continuity.
• Legislative Oversight: Empowers legislatures to monitor ministerial conduct proactively.
• Rule of Law: Aligns political office with legal accountability, reinforcing constitutional morality.

Way Forward

1. Safeguards Against Misuse:
   • Ensure judicial review of detention cases before triggering removal.
   • Define seriousness of offences to prevent frivolous application.
2. Parliamentary Procedure:
   • Clear rules for notification, tenure suspension, and appeal during the 30-day period.
3. Public Awareness & Transparency:
   • Maintain a public registry of office-holders under investigation while respecting privacy rights.
4. Coordination with States:
   • Uniform application across Centre and states to prevent political asymmetry.

Conclusion

The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill embodies a bold attempt to institutionalize ministerial accountability. If implemented judiciously, it can restore public trust, deter corruption, and reinforce the principle that no one is above the law.

However, the success of this reform depends on balancing legal safeguards, judicial independence, and political stability, ensuring that enhanced accountability does not become an instrument for political vendetta.

In essence, the amendment reflects India’s evolving constitutional ethos — striving for responsible governance while preserving democratic checks and balances.