New Delhi : The Parliamentary panel examining the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, along with two related bills, has deferred the adoption of its draft report to allow for further deliberations ahead of the monsoon session of Parliament.
Chairperson of the panel Aparajita Sarangi stated, “We are keeping it pending as of now” after the committee decided not to adopt the report on Friday. Despite initial plans to adopt the draft report, the panel members unanimously agreed on the necessity for additional discussions and consultations with more stakeholders.
Ms Sarangi explained, “There were five recommendations placed before all of us. But when we started discussing the recommendations, the entire Joint Parliamentary Committee unanimously felt that we needed more deliberations and consultation with more stakeholders.” The committee has sent letters to 27 political parties, receiving suggestions from five, although some declined to participate further.
Opposition parties have strongly opposed the Constitution Amendment Bill, but members from certain parties not aligned with the BJP are engaging in the panel’s deliberations. Ms Sarangi noted that while the government’s intent was acknowledged as appropriate, the proposals require further examination. Consultations with major opposition parties remain ongoing.
The committee has been reviewing the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025. On Friday, Home Ministry officials provided their views as part of the examination.
Opposition members reported that the decision to defer the report occurred during voting on the recommendations, with two recommendations having been voted upon and a third under discussion at the time.
Sources revealed the draft report included a recommendation to replace the terminology “removal/cease to be a minister” with “suspension.” It also proposed defining “serious criminal offences” as those punishable with imprisonment of five years or more. Further recommendations involved an automatic reversal clause and provisions for fast-track or special courts for trial of relevant cases.
Sources said All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen leader Asaduddin Owaisi and Nationalist Congress Party (Samajwadi Party) MP Supriya Sule withdrew their dissent notes following the panel’s decision to undertake further discussions.
Opposition members expressed concerns about the bill, particularly the proposed “suspension” provision. They argued that while the executive could trigger action, relief should come from the judiciary, maintaining that judicial authorities should also initiate any action.
Opposition members also noted that the committee chairperson briefly left during discussions on the recommendations.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, along with two related bills, in the Lok Sabha in August last year. The bill intends to prevent individuals holding key constitutional offices such as Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Central and State Ministers from running governments while imprisoned.
Mr Shah stated the bill aims “to elevate the declining standards of morality in public life and bring integrity to politics.” He asserted that laws arising from the three bills will ensure no person in custody can govern as Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister of the Central or State Government.
He added, “When the Constitution was framed, its architects could not have imagined that in the future, there would be political figures who would refuse to resign on moral grounds before being arrested. In recent years, an astonishing situation has arisen in the country where Chief Ministers or Ministers have unethically run the government from jail without resigning.”
The bill includes a provision requiring an accused politician to apply for bail within 30 days of arrest. Mr Shah explained, “If they fail to secure bail within 30 days, on the 31st day, either the Prime Minister at the Centre or the Chief Ministers in the states will remove them from their positions; otherwise, they will automatically become legally disqualified from performing their duties. If such a leader is granted bail after the legal process, they may resume their position.”
Political circles had speculated that the Constitution Amendment Bill concerning removal of Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers in cases involving serious offences would be addressed during the monsoon session. There was also speculation that the government might introduce the delimitation bill linked to women’s reservation if it secures a two-thirds majority in both Houses, following the bill’s defeat in the winter session of Parliament.
