The recommendation marks a major change to the Constitution Bill, 2025, which seeks to prevent senior public office-holders from continuing to govern while detained over serious criminal allegations. The panel has proposed replacing references to “removal” and “ceasing to hold office” with suspension, making the consequence temporary and potentially reversible.
Under the Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha in August 2025, a minister accused of an offence punishable by imprisonment of five years or more would face removal after spending 30 consecutive days in custody. The President or a governor could act on the advice of the Prime Minister or chief minister, while removal would become automatic on the 31st day if no action was taken.
A detained Prime Minister or chief minister would be required to resign after 30 days under the original proposal. Failure to do so would result in the office-holder automatically losing the post from the following day. Similar legislative changes were introduced to cover Puducherry and Jammu and Kashmir.
The committee’s revised approach seeks to prevent an arrest from causing a permanent loss of office before guilt has been established. It has proposed that suspension should lapse if the office-holder is discharged, acquitted or if prosecutors fail to proceed with the case within a specified period.
A person cleared by a court would consequently become eligible for reappointment. The proposed safeguard is intended to ensure that prolonged detention based on an unproven allegation does not create permanent political disqualification.
The panel has also recommended defining “serious criminal offences” more precisely. A separate schedule of qualifying offences could replace the Bill’s broad reliance on the minimum five-year punishment threshold, reducing uncertainty over which cases would trigger suspension.
Fast-track or special courts have been suggested for cases involving the Prime Minister, chief ministers and ministers. The proposal is aimed at preventing cases from remaining unresolved for long periods while an elected office-holder stays suspended.
The committee, chaired by BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi, examined the Constitution amendment alongside the related Bills covering Union Territories and Jammu and Kashmir. Its deliberations included views from legal institutions, constitutional specialists and other stakeholders.
An overwhelming majority of those consulted raised constitutional objections to automatic removal based solely on custody. The principal concern was that detention does not amount to a judicial finding of culpability and can occur before a court has examined whether sufficient evidence exists to frame charges.
The proposal has also prompted questions about parliamentary democracy, federalism and the separation of powers. Critics argue that investigative agencies could effectively alter the leadership of an elected government by arresting a Prime Minister or chief minister and ensuring detention crosses the 30-day threshold.
A central agency could, for example, trigger the suspension of a state chief minister, while a state police force could theoretically initiate proceedings affecting a Union minister or a leader in another state. Constitutional analysts have warned that such outcomes could allow the criminal justice process to interfere with mandates secured through legislatures.
Existing law generally links the disqualification of lawmakers to conviction for specified offences. Arrest, remand or the filing of a charge sheet does not by itself disqualify an MP or state legislator. The proposed legislation would therefore introduce a stricter standard for ministers than the one governing their membership of a legislature.
The government has defended the measure as an effort to strengthen constitutional morality and prevent administration from being conducted from jail. It has argued that senior political office-holders should face standards comparable to public servants, who can be suspended after being detained.
Opposition parties have maintained that the 30-day rule could be weaponised against governments controlled by political rivals. Congress has said it will oppose provisions that allow an elected leader to be displaced without conviction, describing the mechanism as vulnerable to politically motivated arrests.
