Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill 2025

Topic: Amendment of the Constitution and the Basic Structure · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 is a pending bill. Under it, the Prime Minister, a Chief Minister or any Union or state minister would lose office if two things are both true [3]:

• the person is accused of an offence punishable with five years or more in jail;
• the person is arrested and kept in custody for 30 days in a row.

It matters because it tests a hard balance. The bill aims to keep people facing serious criminal charges out of government. Critics say it removes people from office on arrest, before any court has found them guilty.

Explanation

How the bill moved through Parliament

• Introduction: it was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 20 August 2025 [3].
• Committee: it was sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the same day [3]. A JPC is a committee with members from both Houses that studies a bill closely before the House votes on it.
• The JPC is chaired by Aparajita Sarangi.

• By July 2026 it had reached the draft-report stage.

• Companion bills: two other bills apply the same rule to Union Territories (UTs) [3]:

• the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (for Puducherry);

• the J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

• Status: pending. It is still a Bill. It is not an Act.

Who is covered and what it amends

Article amended	Whose office it covers
Art. 75	The Prime Minister and Union ministers
Art. 164	Chief Ministers and state ministers
Art. 239AA	The Chief Minister and ministers of Delhi

The two conditions for removal (both must be met) [3]

1. Seriousness of the offence: the person is accused of an offence punishable with 5 years or more in jail.
2. Length of custody: the person is arrested and held for 30 consecutive days (30 days in a row, without a break).

Conviction (a court finding the person guilty) is not needed. Even the framing of charges is not needed.

What happens after 30 days in custody [3]

• For a minister:
• The President (Union) or the Governor (state) removes the minister on the advice of the PM or CM.

• If the PM or CM gives no such advice, the minister ceases to hold office automatically on the 31st day.

• For the PM or a CM:

• The PM or CM must resign after 30 days in custody.
• If they do not, they cease to hold office from the next day, that is, the 31st day.

The test the bill must pass (Art. 368)

• It needs a special majority in each House separately. This means a majority of the House's total membership and two-thirds of the members present and voting.
• There is no joint sitting for an amendment bill. If one House rejects it, the bill fails.
• If it passes, the President must give assent (Art. 368(2), as changed by the 24th Amendment, 1971).
• Even after it passes, the courts can test it against the basic structure. This is the rule from Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) that Parliament cannot destroy the Constitution's core features.

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it would sit: it would change Art. 75 (Union Council of Ministers), Art. 164 (state Council of Ministers) and Art. 239AA (Delhi) [3]. Puducherry and J&K would be covered through their own laws by the companion bills [3].
• Today's position: under Arts. 75 and 164, ministers hold office "during the pleasure" of the President or Governor. In practice, the PM or CM decides whether a minister stays. The Constitution has no rule that removes a minister just because they are arrested. The bill would add an automatic, time-based removal rule.
• Who would use it:
• The PM or CM, by advising removal.
• The President or Governor, by acting on that advice.

• If neither acts, the Constitution itself would remove the person on the 31st day [3].

• The debate around it:

• For: it cleans up criminalised politics, meaning people facing criminal cases holding public office. It also stops ministers from running a government from jail.
• Against: it goes against the presumption of innocence (a person is treated as innocent until a court proves them guilty), because office is lost on arrest, not on conviction.
• Against: investigating agencies could use arrests to remove opposition governments.

• PRS notes that automatic removal of a PM or CM on the 31st day may violate four basic-structure features: the parliamentary form of government, separation of powers, federalism and the rule of law [3][4].

• Its place among recent bills:

• It is one of three recent amendment bills, after the 129th Bill, 2024 (One Nation One Election, also with a JPC) and before the 131st Bill, 2026 (which was negatived on 17 April 2026) [1].

Don't confuse with

• Disqualification of an MP or MLA on conviction: under election law, a legislator loses their seat after a court convicts them. The 130th Bill removes a person from ministerial office after 30 days in custody, with no conviction needed. It does not deal with the person's seat in the House.
• 130th Amendment Bill vs. a "130th Amendment Act": a bill gets its number when it is introduced. If it passes, it gets a new Act number. For example, the 128th Bill (2023) became the 106th Amendment Act. There is no 130th Amendment Act. The bill is pending.
• 129th Amendment Bill, 2024: that bill is about One Nation One Election (Art. 82A, simultaneous elections) [2]. Both bills are pending before JPCs, but they cover different subjects. The 130th is about ministers in custody.
• 131st Amendment Bill, 2026: that bill dealt with Lok Sabha size (850), delimitation and women's reservation, and it failed in the Lok Sabha [1]. The 130th is still pending, not failed.

Prelims Hooks

• 130th Bill: 30 consecutive days in custody + an offence punishable with 5 years or more means removal on the 31st day [3].
• Articles amended: Arts. 75, 164 and 239AA [3]. Trap: Art. 368 is the article used to pass it. Art. 368 is not one of the articles it changes.
• Covers the PM and CMs too, not just ordinary ministers. The PM or CM must resign, or they cease to hold office from the next day [3].
• Introduced in the Lok Sabha on 20 August 2025 and sent to a JPC the same day [3]. The JPC chair is Aparajita Sarangi.
• Companion bills: the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (Puducherry) and the J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025 [3].
• Trap: removal is triggered by arrest plus custody, not by conviction and not by the framing of charges.

Mains Points

• Clean politics vs. due process (due process means fair legal steps before a penalty):
• The aim is valid. A minister held in jail for a month on serious charges cannot govern properly, and public trust suffers.
• But removal on arrest goes against the presumption of innocence. It also hands power to the investigating agencies that make the arrests.

• Reform options: trigger removal only when charges are framed; set up independent review of arrests of ministers; create fast-track courts for cases against legislators.

• Basic-structure and federal concerns:

• PRS flags risks to the parliamentary form of government, separation of powers, federalism and the rule of law [3][4].
• The federalism risk:
  • A Union agency could arrest a state's Chief Minister.
  • Keeping the CM in custody for 30 days would remove the CM automatically.
  • So an elected state government could fall without any vote in the assembly.

• Under the parliamentary system, the removal of a PM or CM is a matter for the House's confidence, not for an arrest.

• The JPC route and consensus:

• Sending the bill to a JPC on the day it was introduced allows wider scrutiny before the vote.
• The special majority under Art. 368 means the bill can pass only with support across parties. The failure of the 131st Bill in 2026 shows this check at work [1].
• A changed version with safeguards (charge-framing, judicial oversight) is more likely to pass that test, and also the basic-structure test.

Read more

• Recent amendments and pending and failed bills