Congress has vowed to mount a forceful parliamentary challenge to a proposed constitutional amendment that would remove the Prime Minister, chief ministers and ministers from office if they remain in custody for 30 consecutive days in serious criminal cases, setting up a major confrontation over political accountability and alleged misuse of investigative powers.
The party’s opposition has sharpened as a parliamentary panel moves towards finalising its report on the Constitution Bill, 2025, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025, and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee after protests from opposition parties. The panel is expected to adopt its report on July 17, clearing the way for the government to push the legislation during the Monsoon Session.
The Bill proposes changes to Articles 75, 164 and 239AA of the Constitution, covering the Union Council of Ministers, state councils of ministers and the special provisions relating to Delhi. Its central provision says a minister detained for 30 consecutive days in connection with an offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more must be removed. If the required advice for removal is not tendered, the minister would automatically cease to hold office on the 31st day.
For the Prime Minister and chief ministers, the Bill requires resignation after the 30-day custody threshold. Failure to resign would lead to loss of office from the following day. The proposal also provides for reappointment after release, leaving room for political return but only after the custody condition has ended.
The government has framed the proposal as an anti-corruption and probity measure, arguing that holders of high public office should not continue to wield executive authority while facing detention in grave criminal cases. Supporters say the Bill closes a constitutional gap because existing disqualification rules mainly operate after conviction, while ministers can technically remain in office even when they are lodged in prison for an extended period.
Congress has rejected that argument, calling the Bill dangerous and vulnerable to political weaponisation. Party leaders contend that an arrest is not proof of guilt and that executive-controlled agencies could be used to destabilise elected governments. The party’s position is that the proposal weakens the presumption of innocence and allows the ruling establishment to secure political outcomes through detention rather than conviction.
The controversy is sharpened by the Bill’s scope. It does not merely apply to ordinary ministers but extends to chief ministers and the Prime Minister, making it one of the most consequential proposals on executive office since the Constitution came into force. Opposition parties argue that a chief minister enjoying a legislative majority could be forced out through a 30-day detention, even if the case later collapses.
The debate also reflects the political experience of the past few years, when leaders from several opposition parties faced action by agencies in corruption, money laundering and excise policy cases. Opposition groups have repeatedly accused the Centre of using enforcement mechanisms selectively. The government has dismissed such allegations and maintained that investigative bodies act independently and pursue cases based on evidence.
Legal experts are divided over the measure. Those supporting tougher standards say public trust suffers when ministers continue in office from custody, particularly in cases involving corruption, organised crime or abuse of power. Critics counter that detention before trial can be prolonged by the pace of investigation and bail hearings, creating an incentive for politically motivated arrests. They also question whether automatic loss of office without judicial finding can coexist comfortably with constitutional morality and federal principles.
The existing legal framework under the Representation of the People Act disqualifies lawmakers after conviction in specified offences, not merely upon arrest. The proposed amendment would create a separate standard for executive office, targeting the ability to serve as minister rather than legislative membership itself. That distinction is likely to be central to parliamentary and possible judicial scrutiny.
The Joint Parliamentary Committee process has also drawn criticism because several opposition parties have questioned whether adequate safeguards are being built into the Bill. Possible areas of dispute include the meaning of “custody”, whether judicial oversight should be mandatory before removal, and whether cases registered close to elections or confidence votes should trigger special safeguards.
The ruling side is expected to argue that a 30-day threshold prevents action based on brief arrests and that the five-year punishment requirement limits the measure to serious offences. Opposition parties are likely to respond that the severity of the charge is decided at the stage of registration and investigation, when allegations remain untested.
