Amid Controversy: New Amendment Bills and the Power to Remove Elected Officials

(MENAFNEditorial) 1. The Gen­er­al Frame­work: What Do the Bills Propose?

On 20 August 2025, the Indian government, headed by Home Minister Amit Shah, introduced three significant legislative measures in the Lok Sabha:

Constitution (One Hundred-and-Thirtieth) Amendment Bill, 2025

Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025

These bills aim to establish a structured legal mechanism allowing the removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers (both in states and Union Territories) if they are arrested or detained for 30 consecutive days on criminal charges punishable by at least five years in prison .

Mechanics of Removal

Union Level:
A detained PM or Union Minister must resign by the 31st day. Failing to do so automatically removes them from office. The President effectuates the removal, upon advice of the PM. Reappointment post-acquittal is possible.


State Level:
A Chief Minister under detention must also resign by the 31st day, else the Governor or LG has the authority to remove them. Similarly, state Ministers face removal on the same terms.


Union Territories, Including J&K:
The Jammu & Kashmir amendment aligns with this structure: after 30 days in custody, the CM must resign; otherwise, the LG removes them—based on advice from the CM or Council of Ministers—or acts independently if advice isn’t tendered in time.


The overarching goal of these bills is to enhance political accountability, ensuring that office-bearers facing serious criminal allegations do not continue to administer the public while in custody .

2. Proponents’ Argument: A Move Toward Integrity

Supporters of the bills argue they represent a crucial step toward ethical governance:

Upholding Constitutional Morality: Elected officials must not be allowed to wield executive power while facing serious criminal allegations—doing so might undermine public trust in democracy.

Strengthening Public Confidence: By mandating removal upon prolonged detention, the public’s faith in governance and due process may be safeguarded.


3. Opposition’s Concerns: Threat to Democratic Principles

However, opposition voices have raised substantial objections, warning of potentially destructive implications:

Violation of 'Presumption of Innocence': Allowing removal based on arrest—without conviction—violates a key constitutional right. As Congress MP Manish Tewari critiqued, “This bill … violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)” and disrupts the balance of power, elevating investigating agencies over elected officials.

Politicisation and Misuse: Critics believe the law could be weaponized to destabilize opposition-ruled states. As Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out, the best way to unseat political rivals may now be “unleash biased central agencies to arrest opposition CMs … and remove them by arbitrary arrests.”

Dubious Federal Overreach: Leaders like K.C. Venugopal denounced the bills as a “murder of democracy” and a threat to the federal structure, effectively giving the Prime Minister indirect power to remove state Chief Ministers.

Concerns of Authoritarian Drift: Parties like AIMIM and TMC warned the bills could convert India into a police state—with elected governments at the mercy of centralized power.


4. Focus: Removal of Non-BJP CMs and Role of LGs

Your concern appears centered on one scenario: these mechanisms being used to remove Chief Ministers from non-BJP parties, specifically via LGs in Union Territories. Indeed:

In situations where the CM or Council of Ministers fails to tender removal advice, the LG can act independently—potentially against the mandate of the elected government. Opposition criticisms highlight such powers may disproportionately target non-BJP governments.


This raises significant questions about democratic fairness, centralization of power, and constitutional boundaries—especially where the LG is perceived as aligned with the ruling party at the Centre.

Conclusion: Right or Wrong?

Arguments in Favor:
It's arguably justified to prevent individuals accused of serious crimes from continuing in executive positions—maintaining integrity and public trust.


Arguments Against:
Removing elected representatives prior to conviction conflicts with the fundamental legal principle that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The structures could be misused to destabilize opposition governments, especially if executive authority is concentrated in the hands of LGs.

The potential erosion of federalism and democratic norms is a serious constitutional concern.


What ultimately determines whether these bills are "right" or "wrong" will rest on:

Safeguards in implementation: Transparent procedures, judicial oversight, and clear checks could mitigate risks of misuse.

Legislative scrutiny: The bills are now referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination—a crucial process to address constitutional and democratic concerns.

MENAFN20082025000070017523ID1109952909