The Crossbill Team
Union home minister Amit Shah on Wednesday (August 20), introduced three contentious legislations in the Lok Sabha amid strong protests from the opposition—the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025; the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025; and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025. All three have been referred to a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) after the opposition resisted their introduction.
The most debated among them, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, seeks to amend Article 75 of the Constitution to empower the Union government to remove an elected chief minister or any minister from office if they are detained or arrested for 30 or more days, even without conviction.
Opposition leaders called the proposal an assault on federalism and due process, describing it as an attempt to create a “police state.”
In its statement of objects and reasons, the government said: “A Minister, who is facing allegations of serious criminal offences, arrested and detained in custody, may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance and eventually diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people in him.”
The move drew sharp criticism across the opposition benches. AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi likened the measures to authoritarian excesses, saying the three bills were “nothing but creating Gestapo to ensure democracy does not survive.”
He argued, “This violates the principle of separation of power, due process and undermines the right of people to elect a government. It gives executive agencies a free run to be judge, jury and executioner based on flimsy allegations. Only when an offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, only then you can be removed from the post and membership. But here a mere allegation and accusation will result in losing ministerial post.”
Owaisi further warned that the amendment would undermine parliamentary democracy by leaving elected governments vulnerable to unelected officials.
“This bill clearly violates 74(1). This is like 1933 when the Gestapo was formed in Germany, this government is hell bent on creating a police state. This will be a death knell on the elected government,” he said.
Congress MP Manish Tewari said the proposal was a direct assault on the Constitution’s Basic Structure and the rule of law.
“Basis of rule of law is innocent until proven guilty. This Bill makes an investigating officer the boss of the Prime Minister of India,” he said.
“It violates Article 21, the due process clause. FIR, even framing of charge does not substantiate guilt. This Bill turns fundamental jurisprudence of Art 21 on its head. It distorts Parliamentary democracy, which is again basic structure, by displacing Will of the People. It opens doors for political misuse. It throws all constitutional safeguards to the winds.”
RSP MP N.K. Premchandran also opposed the move, arguing that the bill was being rushed through without adequate consultation.
“What is the undue haste and urgent need for bringing such a constitutional amendment bill? That means the bill is lacking in bonafide. This is with the malafide intention to destabilise opposition ruled states in various parts of the country,” he said.
The debate also turned personal when Congress leader K.C. Venugopal questioned Amit Shah’s own conduct during his arrest in July 2010 in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case while serving as Gujarat home minister.
“BJP is saying that this Bill is to bring morality in politics. Can I ask the home minister? When he was the home minister of Gujarat and was arrested, did he show this morality?” Venugopal asked.
Shah responded, “I want to place on record that when false accusations were placed, before I was arrested, I resigned on moral grounds. Until I was cleared by courts I did not take umbrage under any constitutional post. They are teaching us morality? I had resigned before arrest.”
Samajwadi Party MP Dharmendra Yadav also opposed the bill, while repeated uproar forced Speaker Om Birla to adjourn the House.
When proceedings resumed, Birla accused opposition MPs of disrupting the discussion on “a law that will bring morality into politics.”
Shah then proposed sending the three bills to a JPC, with the panel’s report expected by the opening day of the next Parliament session.
The controversy over the legislation comes against the backdrop of high-profile arrests of opposition leaders in recent years. In 2024, Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren resigned before being arrested, while Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal continued in office despite being jailed.
Former Delhi ministers Manish Sisodia and Satyendar Jain were also arrested before securing bail. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had questioned the continuance of Tamil Nadu minister V. Senthil Balaji in office while out on bail in a money laundering case.
Shah reportedly pressed parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju, the law ministry, and Lok Sabha authorities to fast-track the bills for introduction in the current session, which ends Thursday. The referral to the JPC has temporarily defused the confrontation, but the debate around the bills’ implications for federalism and parliamentary democracy is set to continue.
The most debated among them, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, seeks to amend Article 75 of the Constitution to empower the Union government to remove an elected chief minister or any minister from office if they are detained or arrested for 30 or more days, even without conviction.
Opposition leaders called the proposal an assault on federalism and due process, describing it as an attempt to create a “police state.”
In its statement of objects and reasons, the government said: “A Minister, who is facing allegations of serious criminal offences, arrested and detained in custody, may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance and eventually diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people in him.”
The move drew sharp criticism across the opposition benches. AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi likened the measures to authoritarian excesses, saying the three bills were “nothing but creating Gestapo to ensure democracy does not survive.”
He argued, “This violates the principle of separation of power, due process and undermines the right of people to elect a government. It gives executive agencies a free run to be judge, jury and executioner based on flimsy allegations. Only when an offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, only then you can be removed from the post and membership. But here a mere allegation and accusation will result in losing ministerial post.”
Owaisi further warned that the amendment would undermine parliamentary democracy by leaving elected governments vulnerable to unelected officials.
“This bill clearly violates 74(1). This is like 1933 when the Gestapo was formed in Germany, this government is hell bent on creating a police state. This will be a death knell on the elected government,” he said.
Congress MP Manish Tewari said the proposal was a direct assault on the Constitution’s Basic Structure and the rule of law.
“Basis of rule of law is innocent until proven guilty. This Bill makes an investigating officer the boss of the Prime Minister of India,” he said.
“It violates Article 21, the due process clause. FIR, even framing of charge does not substantiate guilt. This Bill turns fundamental jurisprudence of Art 21 on its head. It distorts Parliamentary democracy, which is again basic structure, by displacing Will of the People. It opens doors for political misuse. It throws all constitutional safeguards to the winds.”
RSP MP N.K. Premchandran also opposed the move, arguing that the bill was being rushed through without adequate consultation.
“What is the undue haste and urgent need for bringing such a constitutional amendment bill? That means the bill is lacking in bonafide. This is with the malafide intention to destabilise opposition ruled states in various parts of the country,” he said.
The debate also turned personal when Congress leader K.C. Venugopal questioned Amit Shah’s own conduct during his arrest in July 2010 in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case while serving as Gujarat home minister.
“BJP is saying that this Bill is to bring morality in politics. Can I ask the home minister? When he was the home minister of Gujarat and was arrested, did he show this morality?” Venugopal asked.
Shah responded, “I want to place on record that when false accusations were placed, before I was arrested, I resigned on moral grounds. Until I was cleared by courts I did not take umbrage under any constitutional post. They are teaching us morality? I had resigned before arrest.”
Samajwadi Party MP Dharmendra Yadav also opposed the bill, while repeated uproar forced Speaker Om Birla to adjourn the House.
When proceedings resumed, Birla accused opposition MPs of disrupting the discussion on “a law that will bring morality into politics.”
Shah then proposed sending the three bills to a JPC, with the panel’s report expected by the opening day of the next Parliament session.
The controversy over the legislation comes against the backdrop of high-profile arrests of opposition leaders in recent years. In 2024, Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren resigned before being arrested, while Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal continued in office despite being jailed.
Former Delhi ministers Manish Sisodia and Satyendar Jain were also arrested before securing bail. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had questioned the continuance of Tamil Nadu minister V. Senthil Balaji in office while out on bail in a money laundering case.
Shah reportedly pressed parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju, the law ministry, and Lok Sabha authorities to fast-track the bills for introduction in the current session, which ends Thursday. The referral to the JPC has temporarily defused the confrontation, but the debate around the bills’ implications for federalism and parliamentary democracy is set to continue.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment