Sources said the Joint Parliamentary Committee is likely to retain the provision that would remove the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and ministers after 30 consecutive days in custody in serious cases.
A parliamentary panel is set to back one of the most controversial constitutional proposals by retaining a provision that would allow the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and ministers to be removed from office if they remain in custody for 30 consecutive days in serious criminal cases, sources said.
The recommendation is expected to be part of the Joint Parliamentary Committee’s (JPC) report on the proposed 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, which is likely to be submitted on July 17. However, the proposal is not yet law and will still have to be debated and passed by Parliament with the required constitutional majority before it can take effect.
According to sources, the committee is likely to retain the bill’s most debated provision while recommending safeguards to prevent its misuse for political vendetta. The panel is expected to suggest limiting the provision to specified serious offences and incorporating checks to ensure it cannot be invoked through arbitrary or politically motivated arrests.
The Bill, introduced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in August last year, proposes that if the Prime Minister, a Chief Minister or any Union or state minister is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more and remains in custody for 30 consecutive days, they would automatically cease to hold office on the 31st day. In the case of the Prime Minister and Union ministers, the President would formalise the removal, while Governors would do so for Chief Ministers and state ministers.
If enacted, the amendment would mark a significant departure from the existing constitutional framework. At present, ministers leave office through resignation, dismissal by the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, or disqualification following conviction under existing laws. The proposed amendment introduces prolonged custody, rather than conviction, as a ground for vacating public office.
The government has defended the proposal, arguing that a person who remains in custody for 30 consecutive days would ordinarily have had multiple opportunities to seek bail. It maintains that the provision is intended to protect the integrity of public office and ensure that individuals facing serious criminal proceedings do not continue in executive positions for extended periods.
Opposition parties, however, have strongly opposed the proposal, describing it as unconstitutional, anti-federal and contrary to the principle of natural justice. They argue that it effectively penalises elected representatives before they are found guilty by a court and could be misused by governments to target political opponents through motivated arrests.
The 31-member JPC, headed by BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi, was constituted after the Bill was introduced. Most members of the INDIA bloc, including the Congress, boycotted the committee’s proceedings, alleging that the ruling alliance was unwilling to consider their recommendations.
Sources said Opposition members on the panel, including AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi and NCP (SP) leader Supriya Sule, are expected to submit dissent notes when the report is finalised.
