CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Lok Sabha Introduces 113th Constitutional Amendment Bill: Ministers to Lose Office if Detained for 30 Days

20 August 2025 4:12 PM

By: sayum


New Delhi, August 20, 2025 – In a high-voltage session of Parliament, Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha. Popularly referred to as the 113th Amendment, the Bill proposes sweeping changes to ensure that the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and other ministers cannot continue in office if detained for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges.

What the 113th Amendment Proposes

Automatic Removal of Ministers – If any minister is arrested and detained for 30 days for an offence punishable with five years or more imprisonment, they must resign. Failing that, their office will automatically fall vacant on the 31st day.

Reappointment Permitted – Such individuals may be re-appointed after release, subject to constitutional procedure.

Applicability –

Article 75 – Union Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister.

Article 164 – State Chief Ministers and Ministers.

Article 239AA – Chief Minister and Ministers of the NCT of Delhi.

This move is aimed at strengthening constitutional morality and ministerial accountability, ensuring that those under prolonged detention do not continue to wield executive power.

Introduction in Lok Sabha

The Bill was formally placed before the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025.

It has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed consideration.

Alongside, the Government also tabled the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

Opposition Uproar

The introduction of the Bill led to dramatic protests:

Opposition MPs tore up copies of the Bills inside the House.

Pieces of paper were hurled towards Home Minister Amit Shah during his address.

Opposition leaders labelled the proposal “unconstitutional” and “undemocratic”, expressing fears of potential misuse against political rivals.

The uproar forced repeated interventions from the Speaker and highlighted the deep divisions across party lines.

Legal and Political Significance

Supporters’ View: The amendment bolsters political integrity, making it impossible for ministers under prolonged detention on serious charges to continue in constitutional positions.

Critics’ Concern: The measure may dilute the presumption of innocence and risks being weaponised in politically motivated cases.

As a constitutional amendment, the Bill will require a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, and possibly ratification by states, depending on the interpretation of federal provisions.

What Lies Ahead

The Joint Parliamentary Committee will now examine the Bill clause by clause.

After committee review, it will return to the Lok Sabha for debate and voting, and then move to the Rajya Sabha, where the Government faces a tougher test of numbers.

Constitutional scholars predict a long, contentious debate balancing rule of law, democratic safeguards, and political accountability.

The 113th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025 seeks to disqualify ministers automatically if detained for 30 days on serious criminal charges. While projected as a step towards clean politics, the uproar in Parliament and strong opposition resistance suggest a turbulent legislative journey ahead.

Latest Legal News