Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Wednesday described as “reasonable” the government’s new constitutional amendment bills seeking automatic removal of the Prime Minister, chief ministers or ministers if they are detained on serious criminal charges for 30 consecutive days.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, along with two supplementary bills in the Lok Sabha. The proposed legislation stipulates that holders of high constitutional office must resign—or else automatically lose office—if they remain in custody for a month on charges carrying at least five years of potential imprisonment.
What exactly does the bill propose?
The legislation covers the Prime Minister, Union ministers, chief ministers and state ministers, including those in Union Territories. According to the draft, if such an office-bearer is arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal allegations, he or she must resign on the 31st day.
Failing that, removal will be automatic.
The amendment also provides that in case of the chief minister, who for any period of 30 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 tender his resignation by the 31st day after such arrest and detention, and if the person does not tender resignation, they shall cease to be the chief minister, with effect from the day falling thereafter.
It also provides that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent such chief ministers or ministers from being subsequently appointed as the chief minister or a minister by the Lieutenant Governor, on his release from custody, as per sub-section (1).
Why does the government argue this is necessary?
The Narendra Modi-led government’s explanatory note contends that allowing ministers accused of grave crimes to remain in office undermines constitutional morality, weakens public trust, and hampers governance.
By codifying automatic removal, the central government claims it is strengthening accountability and ensuring higher ethical standards in public life.
How did Shashi Tharoor respond?
Shashi Tharoor on Wednesday, 20 August, remarked, “Anyone who does anything wrong should be liable to punishment and should not be holding a high constitutional office.”
Talking to ANI reporters, MP Shashi Tharoor called the constitutional bills ‘reasonable”.
“I think that makes sense…”, he added.
Talking to NDTV, Tharoor had also said, “If you spend 30 days in jail, can you continue to be a minister? This is a matter of common sense… I don’t see anything wrong in this,” He said, “I think it is good for our democracy to have a discussion within the committee… so let’s have that discussion.”
How has the opposition reacted?
The wider Congress party has attacked the legislation. Party general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra called it “draconian,” warning that it could be misused by ruling parties to dislodge elected leaders on flimsy or politically motivated cases.
“Tomorrow, you can file any case against a Chief Minister, have him/her arrested for 30 days without conviction… and he ceases to be a Chief Minister? It is absolutely anti-constitutional,” Priyanka Gandhi argued.
What happens next?
The three bills introduced by Amit Shah will now be referred to the relevant parliamentary Joint Committee for scrutiny before being taken up for final passage. Given the BJP’s parliamentary strength, the legislation is expected to clear the Lok Sabha, though heated debates are anticipated in both Houses.
About the Author
