Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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