The Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025 by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, seeks to remove the Prime Minister, a Chief Minister or any other minister if the person is arrested and remains in custody for 30 consecutive days in a case involving an offence punishable with five years or more in prison. The panel is expected to adopt its report on July 17, ahead of the Monsoon Session, with the core 30-day custody clause likely to be retained, though possible safeguards may be added.
The proposal has opened a sharp constitutional debate over whether the government is strengthening accountability in public office or creating a mechanism that could unsettle state governments led by rivals. The ruling side has defended the Bill as a step against criminalisation of politics, saying those facing grave charges should not continue to govern from jail. Opposition parties counter that the measure does not wait for conviction, framing of charges or even a substantive judicial assessment of guilt.
The Constitution Bill proposes amendments linked to the removal of ministers at the Union and state levels and extends the mechanism to the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Two companion Bills were introduced on the same day to apply similar provisions to Puducherry and Jammu and Kashmir. Under the proposal, a minister may be removed by the President or Governor on the advice of the Prime Minister or Chief Minister. If such advice is not given, removal would take effect automatically on the 31st day of custody. A Prime Minister or Chief Minister would have to resign by that stage or cease to hold office.
RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha has argued that the measure confuses custody with culpability. His objection centres on natural justice and the presumption of innocence, both of which remain central to criminal law. He has said the aim of public accountability is understandable, but the method chosen risks bypassing due process by making detention, rather than conviction or judicial findings, the trigger for removal.
Jha has also urged that any accountability measure should include safeguards such as prompt judicial scrutiny by an independent forum, a clear definition of serious offences and fast-track trials for holders of constitutional office. Without such protections, he has warned, the clause could encourage politically motivated arrests or prolonged custody in a polarised environment.
TMC MP Sagarika Ghose has described the Bill as anti-federal and anti-democratic, arguing that it allows an elected mandate to be disrupted through the criminal process. Her criticism reflects a wider opposition concern that investigative agencies could become decisive actors in the survival of governments. She has questioned the inclusion of the Prime Minister in the Bill, saying it gives the measure an appearance of neutrality while the practical risk is greater for opposition-led states.
AAP leader Somnath Bharti has linked the proposed law to past arrests of opposition leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal, saying the custody-based trigger could be used to destabilise non-BJP and non-NDA governments. His party’s argument rests on the claim that arrests made during politically charged investigations can keep leaders out of office even before a trial begins.
The debate has been sharpened by legal analysis pointing to possible conflicts with basic features of the Constitution, including parliamentary democracy, separation of powers, federalism and rule of law. Critics argue that the executive agencies responsible for arrest and investigation could, in effect, influence whether a Prime Minister or Chief Minister continues in office. The present disqualification framework generally operates through conviction, defection findings or decisions by constitutional authorities, not merely through custody.
