Constitution (130th Amendment): A Milestone in Political Accountability

The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth) Amendment Bill, 2025, tabled on August 20, 2025, proposes to remove any Minister—including the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister—who remains in custody for 30 consecutive days in connection with serious offences. If the person does not resign by Day 31, the office is vacated automatically. The Bill, however, permits re-appointment after release.

This is not merely a legal tweak; it is a fundamental transformation in the architecture of accountability. It is not a reflection of any single party’s manifesto or political slogan, but a constitutional milestone that will leave an enduring imprint on India’s democratic journey. By embedding political morality into the constitutional framework, the amendment carries the promise of injecting shades of integrity, transparency, and positivity into the functioning of the world’s largest democracy. It also answers long-standing judicial nudges to raise ethical bars in public life.

Service Rules

All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and Central Civil Services (Conduct & Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules lay down obligations and consequences. If a civil servant is detained in custody for more than 48 hours, he or she is deemed to be under suspension automatically (Rule 10 CCS(CCA) Rules).

Moral Benchmarks in Practice

L.K. Advani stepped down in 1996 on mere allegation in the Hawala matter—an early norm-setting moment.

V. Senthil v Balaji initially stayed in office despite custody in cases probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The Supreme Court made it clear that such continuation was “untenable in constitutional morality” and issued a firm ultimatum:

Resign from the Council of Ministers, or Risk cancellation of bail.

Judicial Intervention

Lily Thomas v. UOI (2013): Convicted legislators cannot remain in office even for a day.

Public Interest Foundation v. UOI (2018): Parliament was urged to legislate to curb criminalisation before conviction.

Ethical Imperatives

Allegations of graft, bribery, profiteering from office, or abuse of power create an unavoidable conflict of interest. The office-bearer could use the position to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or obstruct justice. Ethically, the first obligation is to step aside until innocence is vindicated.

The most striking illustration of political insensitivity is that of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who in 2024 was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the excise policy “liquor scam.” Rather than stepping down in keeping with democratic propriety, he clung to office from behind bars, authorising files through delegation and dismissing the matter as mere political persecution.

This spectacle starkly exposed the absence of a binding ethical and constitutional code in India and underscored the urgency of codifying standards through the 130th Amendment. Unlike civil servants who are suspended automatically after 48 hours of custody an elected Chief Minister could remain in office despite being incarcerated for weeks or months.

The Apex Court has often placed and described a bright line at conviction for automatic disqualification, but has urged the legislature to act earlier in the chain (at the point of serious custody/charges). The judiciary has amplified, on repeated basis, the need to enforce the ethical standards of governance.

Global Parallels

UK: In the United Kingdom, where a written Constitution does not exist, the commitment to practices, procedures and above all, trust is integral to political life. Political conventions enforce detachment from office as soon as allegations surface, though the legal requirement is not codified.

France: Named after Édouard Balladur, Prime Minister of France (1993–1995), the doctrine established the principle of ministerial resignation once a minister is placed under formal judicial investigation (mise en examen) for corruption, graft, or serious misconduct. Though not a statute or constitutional rule, it became a political convention to preserve the credibility of the government.

Lokpal Demand v Reality

All political parties once clamoured for the institution of the Lokpal, demanding that even the Prime Minister’s office be brought under its purview. History, however, shows a different reality. When faced with judicial scrutiny, leaders often resisted accountability.

The starkest example was that of Indira Gandhi, who chose to cling to office after the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in 1975 declaring her election void, a decision that triggered the declaration of the National Emergency.

Historic Significance

In sharp contrast, the present moment is historically significant. For the first time, the Prime Minister himself is voluntarily bringing his office within the accountability scheme, through the 130th Constitutional Amendment.

In sharp contrast, the present moment is historically significant. For the first time, the Prime Minister himself is voluntarily bringing his office within the accountability scheme, through the 130th Constitutional Amendment. This act is not only unprecedented but also restores faith in the principle that no office is above the Constitution and no leader beyond scrutiny. The 130th Amendment seeks to codify what in France was only a moral convention, thereby giving constitutional permanence to an ethical standard. Never the opposition was found so perplexed and disturbed that if the ruling dispensation brings a law equally perilous to them, the opposition shall oppose for the sake of opposition. 

Dr (Lt Col) Atul Tyagi

📧 atultyagi100@gmail.com | 📞 9540652090