Introduction

The recently introduced Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill has ignited a significant constitutional and political debate. The Bill seeks to amend Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution concerning the Union and State Councils of Ministers. It stipulates that if a Minister is arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days for an alleged offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more, they shall be removed from office by the President or Governor, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister or Chief Minister respectively.

This proposal, though seemingly procedural, has sparked controversy due to ambiguities around the word “arrest”, the discretionary power of the police, and the possible misuse of detention provisions in politically motivated cases.

Why in the News?

The Bill marks the first constitutional attempt to link a Minister’s continuation in office directly with their criminal custody status, a move never before codified in such explicit terms. It comes amidst increasing arrests of Opposition leaders under stringent laws like PMLA and UAPA, raising concerns about political misuse of arrest powers. The Bill’s intent to ensure ministerial accountability has thus clashed with fears of executive overreach and erosion of constitutional safeguards.

What are the Contentious Provisions of the Bill

1. Arrest-Based Removal: The Bill mandates removal if a Minister is detained for 30 days for offences punishable with over two years’ imprisonment.
2. Discretionary Interpretation: The power of arrest under Section 41 CrPC remains discretionary, a police officer may arrest, not must.
3. Ambiguous Time Limit: The “30 consecutive days” clause lacks clarity on interim bail, custody types, or political context.
4. Governor/President’s Role: The constitutional head acts solely on the advice of the political executive, not on judicial pronouncements, weakening neutrality.

How Does the Law Currently Treat Arrest and Detention

1. Judicial Observations: In Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that arrest is not mandatory for every cognisable offence; discretion must be exercised responsibly.
2. Statutory Provisions: Section 41 CrPC empowers arrest without warrant for offences punishable with over seven years’ imprisonment, subject to recorded reasons.
3. Requirement of Compliance: In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the Supreme Court directed agencies to follow Sections 41 and 41A CrPC before arrest, ensuring proportionality.
4. BNSS Replacement Issue: The new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) does not mandate arrest but allows discretion, leaving room for misuse.

Why Is the Opposition Concerned

1. Political Misuse: The Opposition fears the amendment could become a tool for harassment, allowing governments to suspend rival Ministers on mere arrest, not conviction.
2. Erosion of Autonomy: By relying solely on the executive’s advice, the amendment undermines institutional checks.
3. Precedent of Selective Targeting: High-profile cases under PMLA and UAPA (where Opposition leaders remain under prolonged custody) demonstrate how arrest can substitute conviction in political contexts.
4. Violation of Natural Justice: Removal from office before guilt is proven contradicts the principle of presumption of innocence.

What are the Judicial and Legal Concerns

1. Triplet Test Ignored: Bail decisions require evaluation of flight risk, evidence tampering, and witness influence, but the Bill removes such proportionality.
2. Default Bail Disregarded: Under Section 167(2) CrPC, failure to complete investigation grants bail after 60-90 days. The new Bill’s 30-day threshold ignores this safeguard.
3. Discretionary Arrest Power: The term “arrest” remains undefined. Custody in economic offences or summons may trigger unjust removal.
4. Unequal Treatment: The provision applies equally to Union, State, and Delhi Ministers, disregarding the distinct nature of governance in Union Territories under Article 239AA.

Could the Amendment Undermine the Principle of Rule of Law

1. Blurred Accountability: Judicial oversight over arrests is weakened when executive advice replaces judicial findings.
2. Undue Political Advantage: The amendment may allow ruling parties to destabilize Opposition governments through strategic arrests.
3. Separation of Powers Risk: The President and Governor become ceremonial actors, undermining the spirit of checks and balances.
4. Constitutional Morality at Stake: The move shifts India from rule of law to rule by law, where legality substitutes for legitimacy.

Conclusion

The Amendment Bill’s intent to ensure accountability among Ministers is commendable, but its drafting and scope risk undermining constitutional fairness. The absence of judicial oversight, vague definitions of “arrest,” and political discretion dilute the essence of the rule of law. A balanced reform must incorporate clear judicial safeguards, independent review mechanisms, and uniform arrest protocols, ensuring that no political executive is above the law, nor at its mercy.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2021] To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India?

Linkage: Executive Accountability is a recurring theme in UPSC GS Paper 2, focusing on the balance between the executive’s power and parliamentary oversight. The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill directly links to this theme as it alters how ministerial accountability is ensured shifting it from parliamentary control to executive discretion.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now