The proposed amendment provides for the removal of the Prime Minister, a Chief Minister or a minister if the office-holder is arrested and remains in custody for 30 consecutive days in a case involving an offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more. If the person does not resign or is not removed within that period, the office would be vacated automatically from the 31st day.
The JPC examining the Bill is expected to adopt its report by July 17, ahead of a Monsoon Session likely to begin around July 20 and run for about three weeks. The committee, chaired by BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi, has heard ministries, state representatives, legal scholars, civil society groups and political parties since the Bill was referred to it after its introduction in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025.
The government’s position is that the measure closes a constitutional gap exposed by cases in which elected executives continued to hold office while in custody. Supporters argue that a government cannot be effectively run from jail and that the proposed 30-day window protects against immediate removal at the point of arrest. They also point to the possibility of returning to office if bail is granted after removal, subject to political and constitutional processes.
The Bill seeks to amend Articles 75 and 164, which govern ministers at the Union and state levels, and Article 239AA, which deals with the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Separate companion measures have been brought to extend similar provisions to Jammu and Kashmir and Puducherry. Together, the proposals aim to create a uniform rule for the Union, states and certain Union Territories.
The central legal trigger is not conviction but arrest and continued detention. That marks a significant shift from existing disqualification rules under electoral law, where conviction for specified offences and sentences of two years or more can lead to loss of legislative membership. The proposed amendment would affect ministerial office at an earlier stage, before trial and before a finding of guilt.
That feature has become the main point of contention. Opposition parties and several legal experts have warned that the provision could give investigating agencies disproportionate influence over elected governments. Their concern is that detention by an agency controlled by one government could destabilise another government, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving chief ministers or coalition leaders.
Critics have also raised questions over the basic structure doctrine, under which Parliament may amend the Constitution but cannot alter its essential features. The objections centre on parliamentary democracy, separation of powers, federalism and rule of law. Since courts at the bail stage examine the legality of arrest and grounds for custody, not the full question of guilt, automatic removal could occur before judicial determination of culpability.
The government is expected to counter that the proposal applies equally to all ministers, including those in the Union government, and is confined to serious offences carrying punishment of at least five years. It has also argued that the 30-day threshold allows courts adequate time to grant bail in weak or motivated cases, while preventing prolonged retention of high office by persons facing grave allegations.
The political stakes are considerable because a constitutional amendment requires a special majority in Parliament. It must be supported by two-thirds of members present and voting, as well as a majority of the total membership of each House. If the amendment is deemed to affect federal provisions in a substantive way, ratification by at least half the state legislatures could become necessary, though the government’s formal strategy will become clearer when the Bill returns to Parliament.
The debate comes against a wider backdrop of criminalisation of politics and the growing use of enforcement agencies in public life. Commissions and reform bodies have long argued that conviction-based disqualification is often insufficient because trials involving influential public figures can take years. At the same time, any pre-conviction penalty risks colliding with the presumption of innocence and the electorate’s mandate.
