India's 130th Amendment Bill Targets Integrity in Public Office

The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, was introduced in the Lok Sabha by the Union Home and Cooperation Minister, with the intent to ensure that individuals occupying prominent constitutional positions, including the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and union or state ministers, cannot continue to run the government while lodged in jail. The bill has been presented as a legislative step to uphold the principles of integrity and moral rectitude in public office, responding to widespread concerns over the deteriorating standards of probity among public officials.

Background and Context of the Bill

On August 20, 2025, the bill was formally introduced in Parliament. The Home Minister, in an official statement, highlighted that the objective is to address the issue of public servants continuing to perform their official duties while incarcerated, which, according to the government, diminishes public trust in governance and justice [1].

“This bill ensures that individuals holding important constitutional positions, such as the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers of the Central and State Governments, cannot run the government while in jail. The purpose of this bill is to elevate the declining standards of morality in public life and bring integrity to politics.”— Union Home Minister, 20 August 2025

The bill seeks to amend Article 75 of the Constitution, which defines the appointment and responsibilities of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister. The underlying principle is that any person under confinement on serious legal charges should be temporarily barred from governing responsibilities to maintain the sanctity of constitutional offices [2].

Detailed Provisions

The bill introduces a specific threshold for action: if a minister, including Chief Ministers or the Prime Minister, remains under arrest and in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days, they will lose their official position. The legal provision specifies that the President (in the case of union ministers) or the Governor (for state ministers) is required to act on the advice of the respective executive head:

“A Minister, who for any period of thirty consecutive days during holding the office as such, is arrested and detained in custody, on allegation of committing an offence under any law for the time being in force, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more, shall be removed from his office, by the President on the advice of the Chief Minister to be tendered by the thirty-first day, after being taken in such custody: Provided that if the advice of the Chief Minister, for the removal of such Minister is not tendered to the President by the thirty-first day, he shall cease to be a Minister, with effect from the day falling thereafter…”

This mechanism clarifies that ministers cannot continue their official functions if detained for allegations of serious criminal offences, primarily those carrying potential imprisonment for a term of five years or more. The rule also encompasses the possibility of the accused seeking bail; the provision allows a 30-day window for bail to be granted, after which automatic removal will apply failing judicial relief.

Administrative Implications

The bill introduces an unprecedented system of automatic suspension for ministers under prolonged incarceration. Legally and administratively, it seeks to eliminate ambiguity in cases where politicians previously operated government business remotely or through intermediaries while under judicial custody.

The measure is expected to have several direct administrative implications:

• Suspended officials will lose access to official records, directive authority, and governmental privileges during their detention period beyond 30 days.
• The post in question—be it union or state ministerial office—will be vacated and is eligible for reappointment upon subsequent acquittal or release, provided all procedural conditions are satisfied.
• Departments and ministries will require interim leadership, with temporary reassignment of portfolios to prevent governance paralysis.

This protocol aims to safeguard against decision-making by individuals who are neither present nor fully accountable due to their incarceration, creating a clear demarcation for administrative processes and public accountability.

Enforcement and Process

The language of the bill details the steps for enforcement, linking automatic removal directly to the duration and seriousness of criminal charges. If an affected official secures bail or release within the stipulated 30 days, the provision ceases to apply, thereby preserving due process and offering an opportunity for legal recourse. However, should the official remain incarcerated for beyond 30 consecutive days, the removal process is triggered mandatorily by the executive authority (President or Governor), either upon received advice or automatically if no advice is rendered [2].

Following release, the provision for reappointment allows discretion for executive or legislative bodies to reinstate the official, in keeping with the outcome of the judicial proceedings. This aspect aims to balance administrative continuity with the principles of legal fairness and the presumption of innocence until conviction.

Precedents and Need for Reform

Historically, the Indian Constitution did not explicitly bar ministers or chief ministers from discharging official duties while incarcerated, unless they were convicted and disqualified by law. Cases have occurred where leaders under investigation, and even under arrest, continued to exercise functions, particularly via directives conveyed to colleagues or bureaucrats.

The Rajdhani NCT of Delhi witnessed a recent high-profile example: during the Chief Minister’s pretrial detention, correspondences and file clearances were reportedly denied, yet the absence of an explicit constitutional bar led to operational ambiguities until eventual release or resignation [4].

The government has presented the amendment as a response to “public outrage” and a perceived need to restore high moral standards in public office, particularly given the scale of alleged misuse of state machinery and the erosion of public trust [1].

Potential Impact on Governance

The bill’s most immediate effect will be to prevent jailed ministers or chief ministers from wielding official powers during their period of judicial custody, marking a significant shift in administrative practice at both state and national levels. Its potential impacts include:

• Greater clarity for bureaucracies regarding the locus of authority in cases of judicial custody, reducing ambiguity about the chain of command.
• Increased trust among the public and civil society in the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability.
• Potentially higher standards of ethical conduct expected from political office-holders, by mandating their recusal and temporary removal in the face of serious criminal proceedings.

The provision for automatic reinstatement post-release acknowledges the principle of legal presumption of innocence, while ensuring that no accused official can run government while deprived of liberty, thus preserving both fairness and the practical needs of governance [2].

Comparison with International and Indian Legal Practices

The Indian amendment draws a new line for qualifications to hold ministerial office, distinct from many federal or parliamentary systems that require conviction, not pretrial detention, for removal. The issue had earlier been weighed by the Constituent Assembly, where a motion for barring individuals convicted of bribery or moral turpitude from ministerial office was ultimately rejected due to concerns over excessive micromanagement of qualifications and the risk of undue encroachment on legislative and electoral prerogatives [3].

Globally, democracies vary in their approach; some call for immediate resignation upon arrest, others await conviction, while few permit continued office with certain restrictions. The bill sets a firm minimum threshold of 30 days of incarceration on serious charges, balancing protection from vindictive arrests and the need for maintaining high public standards.

Legislative Process and Next Steps

Upon its introduction, the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further examination and debate. This committee is tasked with scrutinizing the legal language, evaluating constitutional implications, and seeking inputs from stakeholders before the bill proceeds for broader legislative consideration and potential passage [2].

The Joint Committee’s detailed review will assess issues such as:

• Safeguards against misuse of the provision for politically motivated arrests.
• Consistency with the principles of natural justice, due process, and federal balance.
• Clarity and sufficiency of the procedural framework to ensure fairness for accused officials and administrative stability during transitions.

Amendments or recommendations arising from this review may further refine the bill’s provisions before its return to the Lok Sabha and subsequent movement to the Rajya Sabha, in accordance with standard legislative procedure.

Stakeholder Responses and Public Discourse

The introduction of the bill has generated significant discussion in legislative and civic forums. While some commentators and organizations have welcomed the move as an overdue measure to uphold standards of public accountability, others have raised concerns about its practical and constitutional implications [5].

Key points raised in the broader debate include:

• Arguments that the measure could be misused for political gain by facilitating the removal of leaders through protracted legal or investigative actions without actual convictions.
• Concerns over potential conflict with federal principles and the autonomy of state governments, as well as the possible encroachment of executive agencies on democratic and elective mandates.
• Supporters highlight the intent to deter corruption and promote a culture of accountability at the highest levels of government.

Public discourse has emphasized the need to balance the deterrence of malfeasance with the protection of fundamental legal rights, and to ensure that mechanisms are insulated from undue influence or arbitrary application.

Legal and Constitutional Considerations

The proposed amendment operates within the constitutional framework and invokes the Parliament’s authority to set qualifications for ministerial office. However, it also prompts larger questions concerning due process, the presumption of innocence, and the relationship between executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

Legal experts and commentators have cited the need for clear procedural safeguards, explicit criteria for triggering and reversing the removal, and robust parliamentary oversight to prevent potential misuse while ensuring swift action in genuine cases of serious criminality [3].

Conclusion: Towards Enhanced Public Office Integrity

The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, represents a significant legislative effort to ensure that the highest offices in India’s executive structure are vested with individuals of unimpeachable integrity, especially during periods when they are facing serious legal proceedings. By instituting a fixed threshold and a clear process for the suspension or removal of ministers from public office during incarceration, the bill aims to fortify the standards of ethics in governance and reinforce public confidence in India’s constitutional framework.

Its ultimate shape and future application will depend on the outcomes of ongoing parliamentary scrutiny, the interventions of constitutional authorities, and continued public engagement with the principles of transparency, accountability, and justice in public life. The move marks a prominent chapter in India’s evolving journey towards reinforcing integrity and public trust at the core of constitutional governance.