The Constitutional Amendment on Ministerial Accountability: A Double-Edged Sword for Indian Democracy
UPSC Relevance
Prelims: Indian Polity and Governance (Constitutional Amendments, Articles 75, 164, 21; Disqualification of members - RPA, 1951; Landmark judgments; Parliamentary Committees).
Mains:
General Studies Paper 2: Indian Constitution—amendments, significant provisions and basic structure; Separation of powers; Federal structure; Parliament and State legislatures; Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability.
General Studies Paper 4 (Ethics): Probity in Governance.
Key Highlights from the News
Central government introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha.
Key Provision: The Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers will lose their positions if they are continuously in custody for 30 days in a crime punishable by more than five years of imprisonment.
The stated objective of this Bill is to increase probity and accountability in governance.
Main Criticisms:
It contradicts the judicial principle of "presumption of innocence" until proven guilty. This may be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Currently, under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, a people's representative can only be disqualified if a court finds them guilty (conviction). This Bill acts on the basis of detention.
This law may lead to the misuse of central investigative agencies to target ministers in opposition-ruled states, thereby weakening federal principles.
There is criticism that this law could cause political instability and create an inconsistency in disqualification between ministers and ordinary MLAs.
An article points out that the root cause of criminalization in politics is parties giving tickets to candidates with a 'winning chance,' and that this should be addressed first.
The Bill is currently under detailed consideration by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).
COMMENTS