The recently concluded Monsoon Session of Parliament may have been brief, but it marked a turning point in the political mood of the country and produced two developments that left observers stunned.

The change in mood was visible from the very start: when the Prime Minister entered Parliament, he was greeted with enthusiastic slogans by BJP MPs, and his detailed reply to the debate on Operation Sindoor was seen as a rare gesture of respect to the House—something that has been missing in much of his eleven years in office.

Yet, by the end of the session, the atmosphere had shifted dramatically. Opposition MPs raised chants of “Vote chor, gaddi chhod” (“vote thief, leave the throne”) during the debate on the controversial SIR process in Bihar.

 What stood out was not just the opposition’s aggression but the passivity of ruling party MPs, who, unlike in previous sessions, made little effort to drown out these chants. To many, this looked like a quiet surrender.

Alongside this changing mood, two unexpected developments dominated the session. The first came at the very beginning with the abrupt resignation of Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar. Even weeks later, political circles remain baffled.

The election campaign to replace him is now in full swing, but Dhankhar himself has vanished from public life. While speculation abounds, the widely accepted explanation is that his resignation stemmed from the displeasure of the top leadership of the ruling dispensation. The suddenness of the move, coupled with Dhankhar’s silence since, has only deepened the mystery.

The second surprise arrived at the end of the session when the government unexpectedly introduced the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha. Bypassing the established process of the Business Advisory Committee, the bill was brought in without warning, shocking not only the opposition but many within the ruling party as well.

The proposal itself carries sweeping consequences: it mandates that if any public office-holder—from the Prime Minister to a Chief Minister or minister—is jailed without bail for a month on charges carrying a punishment of five years or more, they would automatically lose their post.

The bill, passed for scrutiny by a Joint Parliamentary Committee despite opposition protests, has already triggered controversy, with opposition parties announcing boycotts of the committee.

The ruling BJP has presented this amendment as an effort to cleanse politics. Home Minister Amit Shah framed it as a push for purity in governance, while the Prime Minister, during election rallies in Bihar, Bengal, and elsewhere, branded opposition resistance as proof of their corruption. Predictably, he reiterated his claim that his government remains untouched by corruption. Yet, outside the circle of Modi’s unwavering supporters, this claim has found little traction. Most citizens see the amendment less as a genuine reform and more as a weapon to destabilize opposition governments.

The government’s argument—that “government cannot be run from jail”—rings hollow when placed against recent history.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Jharkhand’s Hemant Soren were both targeted through central agencies like the ED and CBI. Soren, sensing the trap, resigned strategically before his arrest to protect his government, while Kejriwal resisted resignation and eventually secured bail, thwarting efforts to topple his administration.

The new amendment, however, would ensure that even such defiance becomes impossible: a jailed leader would automatically lose office after a month, regardless of whether charges were politically motivated.

This is not a far-fetched fear. Central agencies have already been unleashed against opposition leaders across states—and bail is often deliberately made difficult. The amendment, therefore, arms the government with an even sharper tool of coercion. It can not only destabilize governments but also serve as a sword hanging over ministers and chief ministers, compelling defections or silence.

After all, many prominent leaders—were brought into the BJP fold through pressure from these very agencies. The amendment institutionalizes this practice, making it deadlier

Importantly, the sword will not hang only over the opposition. Even BJP’s allies and its own ministers cannot escape the implications of such a law. Unease within the Telugu Desam Party and JD(U) over the amendment is already visible. By empowering agencies further, the amendment risks destabilizing not just rivals but also friends.

Seen in a broader context, this bill is not just about short-term political maneuvering. It is part of a creeping project to hollow out the Constitution itself. While the Prime Minister publicly swears fidelity to the Constitution, in practice his government has been introducing piecemeal changes that alter its spirit.

The “One Nation, One Election” proposal was one such attempt, and now another sweeping amendment has been tabled. Alongside these moves, demands from within the BJP’s ideological base to strip the Preamble of words like “socialist” and “secular” are growing louder. Together, they signal a deliberate attempt to reshape the constitutional order step by step.

The Monsoon Session may be remembered not only for its surprises but also for revealing this deeper strategy. The opposition rightly fears that the amendment is less about “purity in politics” and more about institutionalizing the use of state power against elected governments. If so, then what unfolded in this session is not an isolated episode, but part of a larger, more troubling trajectory: the slow but steady dismantling of the democratic safeguards enshrined in India’s Constitution.


The author is an independent journalist. The views are personal.