PSU MD Ineligible To Unilaterally Appoint Sole Arbitrator; General Consent Not 'Express Waiver' Under Section 12(5): Allahabad High Court Testimony Of Chance Witnesses Requires Cautious Scrutiny; Presence Must Be Adequately Explained To Sustain Conviction: Allahabad High Court Decree Holder Can Execute Award Against Guarantor Even If Execution Against Principal Borrower Is Pending: Andhra Pradesh High Court NDPS Accused Entitled To Bail If Charge-Sheet Filed Without FSL Report & Tended Later Via Simple Letter: Bombay High Court Cyber Fraud Accused Who Is 'Prime Perpetrator' Cannot Claim Parity With Beneficiaries Who Received Bail: Calcutta High Court Non-Disclosure Of Cash Loan In Income Tax Returns Not A Valid Defence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Non-Examination Of Informant Not Fatal In Corruption Cases If Demand & Acceptance Proved Through Other Evidence: Delhi High Court Trial Judges Must Not Be Mute Spectators; Prosecution Duty To Place Exculpatory Evidence Before Court: Gujarat High Court Failure To Open Sealed Contraband Samples During Trial Vitiates Conviction; Prosecution Must Establish Physical Link In Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court Individual Liberty Must Yield To Collective Interest In Gang Rape Cases: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Denies Bail Able-Bodied Husband Can't Avoid Maintenance By Citing Unemployment; Wife's Employment No Bar To Bridge 'Status Gap': Karnataka High Court Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused Who Absconded For 14 Years; Says Continued Incarceration Unnecessary Since Investigation Is Over POCSO Trial Court Cannot Suo Motu Order Assistance Of Special Educator Without First Assessing Competency Of Victim: Madras High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Cannot Be Rejected On Ground Of Deceased Employee's Service Record If Not In Policy: Madhya Pradesh HC Limitation For Filing Written Statement In Commercial Suits Triggers From Service Of Summons With Plaint: Telangana High Court 'Last Seen' Theory Alone Insufficient To Convict For Murder Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Two In Charred Body Case Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Under Section 480(3) BNSS If Subsequent Offence Carries Punishment Less Than 7 Years: Supreme Court Joint Discovery Statements By Multiple Accused A 'Myth', Section 27 Evidence Act Requires Specific Authorship: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convicts "Further Inquiry" Under Service Rules Does Not Permit De Novo Probe: Supreme Court Reinstates Judicial Officer

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