A parliamentary panel is seeking changes to the law on the dismissal of prime ministers, premiers and ministers after 30 days in prison

Chairperson of the Joint Parliamentary Committee Aparajita Sarangi. File | Photo credit: ANI

The Joint Parliamentary Committee Scrutinizing the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill recommended replacing the provision for the automatic “removal” of a Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Minister after 30 consecutive days in custody with “suspension”, although the immediate effect in either case would be for the public official to resign from office.

Arguing that the bill was driven by “malicious intent”, most opposition parties refused to join the panel headed by BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi. The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to address what the government describes as a vacuum in cases where public officials continue to hold office during long-term imprisonment.

The panel made five recommendations. These include replacing the Act’s provision on the “removal” of a minister or the requirement to “cease to be a minister” with the term “suspension”. The recommendation follows comments from stakeholders that terms such as “removed” and “cease to be a minister” carry an “unwarranted air of finality and stigma”. In contrast, a suspension, similar to the service rules, under which civil servants detained after a certain period of time are suspended without any presumption of guilt, is considered a retroactive measure.

The committee also recommended defining “serious offences” as offenses punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. It proposed an automatic revocation clause, under which the suspension would lapse upon dismissal, acquittal or failure to prosecute within a specified period. The Senate also demanded that fast-track courts hear cases involving senior constitutional functionaries and that a separate list of offenses be drawn up to which the proposed provisions would apply.

The Constitution is silent

According to the committee’s draft report, there was broad consensus among stakeholders that both the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act 1951 are currently silent on the consequences of the arrest and detention of a sitting Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Minister on charges of serious offences. But the report notes that the sharpest disagreements centered on the mechanism chosen by the bill rather than its goal.

“Notably, even in the support group, no stakeholder advocated the current wording of the law without reservation, and even in the critical group, no stakeholder rejected the legislative goal itself,” the report said. “The disagreement lies overwhelmingly with the design of the trigger mechanism and the safeguards that accompany it, not the underlying policy objective.”

The most contentious provision was the bill’s trigger mechanism, under which a public official would automatically lose office after spending 30 continuous days in custody for offenses punishable by five years or more in prison.

A problematic clause

The report noted that “the vast majority of stakeholders,” including institutions otherwise supportive of the legislation, viewed the trigger as constitutionally problematic because it was not associated with any judicial admission of guilt.

He notes that law universities, civil society organizations and political parties have repeatedly argued that arrest is an “executive/procedural tool” and “is not a judicial decision of guilt”. As a result, attaching constitutional consequences to custody rather than conviction or even trial “runs the risk of treating an unproven allegation as a de facto disqualifier.”

Several institutions, including NALSAR Hyderabad, National Law University Delhi, West Bengal National University of Juridical Science, Kolkata and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), have instead suggested that the trigger should be shifted to the stage of framing of charges by the court.

Limits for offences

The report also notes concerns about the law’s threshold for qualifying offences. Several stakeholders argued that the five-year limit was “poorly set” and inconsistent with other laws that use a seven-year limit for serious crimes. Some have pointed out that the provision could cover more than 140 offences, many of which are not directly related to integrity in public life.

The Committee did not accept the request to raise the limit to seven years, but recommended the inclusion of a separate list of offenses punishable by imprisonment of five years or more.

The panel also noted concerns that the mechanism could be misused against opposition-ruled states through the actions of central investigative agencies.

A “substantial majority” of stakeholders from academia and civil society argued that strict bail provisions under laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Prevention of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act could make it difficult to release within 30 days, potentially allowing the provisions to be used to oust chief ministers and ministers without any finding of guilt. The panel made no recommendations on this issue.

Published – 10 Jul 2026 22:01 IST