Parliament panel seeks changes to Bill on removal of PM, CMs and Ministers after 30 days in jail
The Joint Parliamentary Committee examining the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 finalised its draft report, retaining the underlying objective of preventing continued exercise of office from judicial custody
The committee recommended replacing the term "removal" with "suspension" and reworking the arrest-based trigger mechanism in the Bill's provisions
The Bill, as introduced, proposed that a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister held in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a sentence of five years or more would cease to hold office from the 31st day, with provision for reappointment upon release or acquittal
A section of political parties represented in Parliament declined to participate in the committee's proceedings, citing concerns over the Bill's underlying intent
The committee's report was scheduled for consideration ahead of introduction of the revised Bill in the Parliament session
Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 — Articles 75, 164, and 239AA
The Bill proposes amendments to three constitutional provisions governing the Council of Ministers: Article 75 (Union Council of Ministers), Article 164 (State Councils of Ministers), and Article 239AA (Delhi's Council of Ministers). As introduced, it required the President/Governor/Lieutenant Governor to remove a minister — including the Prime Minister or Chief Minister — from office if they remained in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days on an offence punishable with five years' imprisonment or more.
Key Details
- Article 75 governs appointment and tenure of Union Ministers, who hold office "during the pleasure of the President" (Article 75(2))
- Article 164 contains an identical "pleasure" clause for State Ministers, and Article 239AA extends analogous provisions to the NCT of Delhi
- The Bill would insert a new automatic-cessation trigger tied to prolonged judicial custody, distinct from the existing "doctrine of pleasure," which allows removal but does not mandate it
- The committee's recommended shift from "removal" to "suspension" implies that a minister so affected could resume office if the underlying custody condition ends (e.g., bail or acquittal) without needing fresh reappointment — a materially different consequence than removal, which ends the tenure outright
The core of the news is precisely this committee-recommended change — from an outright constitutional "removal" mechanism to a "suspension" mechanism — while preserving the Bill's stated goal of preventing a minister from continuing to exercise office while in extended custody.
Doctrine of Pleasure and Existing Removal Mechanisms Compared
Under the existing constitutional scheme, Union and State Ministers hold office at the "pleasure" of the President/Governor (Articles 75(2) and 164(1)), meaning they can be removed on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister/Chief Minister, but there is no existing constitutional provision that automatically removes a minister purely because of arrest or judicial custody, regardless of conviction.
Key Details
- Under criminal law, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty; the Bill's automatic-cessation trigger operates before any conviction, based solely on the duration of custody
- This is distinct from disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Section 8), which disqualifies a legislator only upon conviction (not mere arrest) for specified offences, with a minimum sentence threshold
- The Bill does not amend Article 75(2)/164(1) pleasure doctrine itself but adds a new, separate cessation trigger
The committee's proposed shift to "suspension" and a reworked "arrest-based trigger" suggests an attempt to align the Bill's mechanism more closely with the presumption-of-innocence principle, allowing reinstatement rather than permanent removal if custody ends without conviction.
- Bill: Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 — introduced in Lok Sabha, August 2025
- Provisions amended: Articles 75 (Union Council of Ministers), 164 (State Councils of Ministers), 239AA (NCT of Delhi)
- Original trigger: 30 consecutive days in judicial custody on a charge carrying 5+ years' imprisonment; cessation of office from the 31st day
- Committee's recommended change: "removal" reworded to "suspension"; arrest-based trigger to be reworked
- Original Bill included a reappointment clause on release/acquittal
- Referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament for detailed examination