Key Highlights
- P Chidambaram criticizes Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill as unconstitutional and anti-democratic for enabling removal of officials based on mere arrests
- The Bill allows removal of PM, Chief Ministers, and ministers jailed for 30+ days on charges carrying five years imprisonment
- Under-trial prisoners constitute 70% of India’s prison population with bail decisions often taking weeks due to court reluctance
Opening Assessment
Senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP P Chidambaram has launched a scathing attack on the Constitution Amendment Bill introduced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, describing it as an “extraordinary and patently unconstitutional” piece of legislation. The Constitution Amendment Bill, officially known as the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, allows for the removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and ministers who are jailed for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable by five years or more imprisonment, has sparked intense debate about democratic principles and federalism in India.
Chidambaram’s criticism centers on the Constitution Amendment Bill’s provision to override electoral mandates based solely on arrests, without requiring formal charges, trials, or convictions. The Constitution Amendment Bill proposal comes at a time when bail applications in India face significant delays, with thousands landing at the Supreme Court monthly and under-trial prisoners constituting nearly 70% of the country’s prison population.
The government introduced an extraordinary and patently unconstitutional Bill In the Lok Sabha yesterday
— P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) August 21, 2025
If an arrested Chief Minister does not get bail in 30 days, he will cease to be Chief Minister!
Have you heard of anything more bizarre in the legal world?
No charges, no…
Constitutional Framework and Legal Implications
- The Constitution Amendment Bill seeks to amend Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution to create a legal framework for removal of high officials
- Currently, no constitutional provision exists prohibiting ministers from holding office while in custody
The Constitution Amendment Bill targets a significant gap in India’s constitutional framework by proposing amendments to three critical articles. Article 75 deals with the appointment of the Prime Minister and Union Ministers, Article 164 outlines provisions related to the Council of Ministers in states, and Article 239AA covers special provisions for the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Constitution Amendment Bill’s statement of objects and reasons emphasizes that elected representatives should maintain character and conduct “beyond any ray of suspicion,” arguing that ministers facing serious criminal allegations while in custody may “thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality.”
The legal mechanism proposed under the Constitution Amendment Bill requires removal within 31 consecutive days of custody, with the President acting on the Prime Minister’s advice for central ministers, and Governors acting on Chief Ministers’ advice for state ministers. Importantly, the Constitution Amendment Bill clarifies that removed officials remain eligible for reappointment after their release from custody. This provision has drawn particular criticism for its potential to bypass due process, as it enables removal based purely on allegations without requiring conviction or even formal charges to be filed.
Critical Assessment of Bail System Challenges
- Trial courts increasingly deny bail while High Courts show reluctance to grant relief
- Supreme Court receives thousands of bail applications monthly, creating procedural delays
- Under-trial detention rates remain at approximately 70% despite judicial interventions
P Chidambaram’s critique of the Constitution Amendment Bill extends beyond the constitutional amendment to highlight systemic issues within India’s bail system that make the proposed legislation particularly problematic. The senior lawyer-politician pointed out that “trial courts seldom grant bail these days” and “high courts are reluctant too,” resulting in thousands of bail applications landing at the Supreme Court each month. This judicial reality creates a situation where the 30-day threshold for removal under the Constitution Amendment Bill could easily be breached due to procedural delays rather than merit-based decisions.
Official data on bail statistics and delays in India
Official data supports Chidambaram’s concerns about the bail system’s functionality in relation to the Constitution Amendment Bill. The Supreme Court itself has expressed frustration about being “flooded” with bail petitions, noting that cases which previously wouldn’t reach High Courts now require apex court intervention. In March 2025, the Supreme Court described it as “unfortunate” that relief isn’t being granted in minor offenses despite completed investigations, highlighting a systemic reluctance to grant bail across the judicial hierarchy. This reluctance, combined with the proposed 30-day removal threshold in the Constitution Amendment Bill, could potentially destabilize elected governments based on procedural delays rather than substantive legal concerns.
Political Opposition and Federal Democracy Concerns
- Opposition parties allege the Constitution Amendment Bill could destabilize non-BJP state governments through misuse of central agencies
- The Constitution Amendment Bill faces significant parliamentary hurdles as NDA lacks the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments
The political implications of the Constitution Amendment Bill have generated fierce opposition, with critics arguing it represents a tool for destabilizing state governments, particularly those led by opposition parties. Opposition leaders allege that the BJP-controlled central government could potentially misuse investigating agencies to frame non-BJP Chief Ministers, arrest them, and subsequently remove them from office using the Constitution Amendment Bill. Chidambaram characterized the Constitution Amendment Bill as not only unconstitutional but also “anti-democratic and anti-federal,” warning that it threatens the foundational principles of India’s democratic structure.
The parliamentary arithmetic reveals significant challenges for the Constitution Amendment Bill’s passage. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, which the ruling National Democratic Alliance currently lacks. This procedural reality raises questions about the government’s strategy in introducing the Constitution Amendment Bill it cannot implement in its current form, with some analysts suggesting the move may be aimed at creating a larger perception battle rather than immediate legislative success. Home Minister Amit Shah has defended the Constitution Amendment Bill as necessary to “elevate the declining moral standards and maintain integrity in politics,” positioning it as an anti-corruption measure.
Closing Perspective
The Constitution Amendment Bill represents a significant constitutional proposition that intersects with India’s broader challenges in criminal justice administration and democratic governance. P Chidambaram’s characterization of the Constitution Amendment Bill as “patently unconstitutional” reflects deeper concerns about the balance between accountability and due process in a democracy where bail decisions often face substantial delays. The Constitution Amendment Bill’s provision to remove elected officials based on arrests alone, without requiring conviction or even formal charges, challenges fundamental principles of presumption of innocence and democratic mandates.
The convergence of systemic bail delays, political polarization, and the Constitution Amendment Bill creates a complex scenario where procedural inefficiencies could potentially override electoral outcomes. With under-trial prisoners constituting 70% of India’s prison population and bail applications taking weeks or months for resolution, the Constitution Amendment Bill’s 30-day threshold appears particularly vulnerable to manipulation through procedural delays rather than substantive legal considerations. As the Constitution Amendment Bill moves to the Joint Parliamentary Committee for further deliberation, the debate will likely center on whether accountability measures can be implemented without compromising democratic principles and federal structure that form the foundation of India’s constitutional framework.
