On August 20, 2025, the Union government dropped a simple, hard question into India’s political arena: can someone who cannot legally step out of jail still sit at the top table of government? To answer it, Home Minister Amit Shah placed three bills before Parliament that would make ministers and even the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister vacate office if they spend 30 consecutive days in custody on serious criminal charges.
What the main Constitution Bill actually says
The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth) Amendment Bill, 2025 proposes to amend Articles 75 (Union), 164 (States) and 239AA (NCT of Delhi). In plain language:
- 30-day custody rule: If any minister is arrested and kept in custody for 30 straight days in a case punishable with a maximum term of five years or more, they must be removed by the President (for Union ministers) on the Prime Minister’s advice, or by the Governor (for state ministers) on the Chief Minister’s advice by Day 31. If that advice isn’t given by Day 31, the minister automatically ceases to hold office the next day.
- If it’s the PM/CM in custody: The Prime Minister or a Chief Minister must resign by Day 31; if not, they automatically cease to hold office the day after.
- Return after release: A PM/CM/minister who loses office under this rule can be re-appointed after release.
The two companion bills
Two other bills carry the same logic to places the Constitution text doesn’t directly cover:
- A Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025 to extend the mechanism to UTs with legislatures (like Puducherry).
- A Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025 to align J&K’s framework with the 30-day rule (removal by the Lieutenant-Governor on the Chief Minister’s advice; automatic cessation if advice isn’t tendered; and a CM in custody must resign by Day 31 or cease to hold office).
What counts as a “serious” case?
The threshold is any offence carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more (it’s about the maximum term prescribed, not the likely sentence in a particular case). The trigger is custody for 30 consecutive days, not conviction.
How this differs from current disqualification rules
Today, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 disqualifies MPs/MLAs after conviction typically when the sentence is two years or more. That affects a person’s status as a legislator, not specifically their post as a minister. The new proposal tackles the executive office and kicks in on prolonged custody, even before trial ends.
Why now?
The government frames it as a good-governance fix: ministers facing grave charges shouldn’t wield executive power from custody; codifying a clear rule avoids ad-hoc political tussles. The Statement of Objects and Reasons says ministers under serious criminal allegation “may thwart… constitutional morality” and erode public trust.
The politics (so far)
- Sharp pushback in the House: Opposition MPs protested as the bills were introduced; proceedings saw high drama with members tearing copies.
- A rare cross-party nod: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor called the basic idea “reasonable,” even as his party criticised the move as an unusual public split.
After introduction in the Lok Sabha, the government has pushed to refer the bills to a Joint Committee of Parliament (indicatively 21 Lok Sabha + 10 Rajya Sabha members), where wording, safeguards and edge cases can be debated and refined before any final vote. Expect close scrutiny of due-process questions and the scope of “serious offences.”
If enacted in its current form, the 130th Amendment and its companion bills would create a bright-line rule: 30 days in custody on a serious charge means you can’t stay in office, whether you’re a minister, a Chief Minister or the Prime Minister. It won’t decide guilt or innocence; it would simply pause the privilege of holding executive power until you’re out of custody after which re-appointment is explicitly allowed.
