- The Indian Constitution is supreme, unambiguously delineating the roles of responsibilities of the three critical pillars, viz. the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, alongside the rule of law of the land needs no further elucidation. The democratic nature of the Indian governance largely derives its sustenance from the expertly crafted Constitution, allowing the country to surge ahead despite encountering varied challenges all these years, and precisely after obtaining independence. Thus, the primacy accorded to the Constitution is not only apt but also assiduously guarded by the Supreme Court of India tasked to uphold the same in letter and in spirit. Indeed, passing the scrutiny of Constitutional propriety assumes even more importance.
PC: The Hindu
- Given the above, any law promulgated by the legislature must pass muster before Parliament first, and then the apex court is the norm. Of course, we know corruption is the bane of the nation that has since been deeply embedded in our everyday existence. Thus, efforts are always afoot to address this menace in society for the betterment of all of us, but haven’t yielded much return despite innumerable attempts. As such, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill and its adjuncts tabled in Parliament recently propose something serious – that a PM or a CM or a minister will be removed from office if he/she has been in custody for 30 days, for an offence punishable by 5+ years of jail term. Opposition’s questions and criticisms were predictable.
PC: Deccan Herald
- As is their wont, the opposition, in a most unlovely way, tore up copies of the bill and threw these at the treasury benches. Amidst chaotic scenes and repeated adjournments, GOI denied that the bills had been brought in haste but agreed to send them to a joint parliamentary committee. The 21 Lok Sabha and 10 Rajya Sabha members of this JPC have to distill the matter to basic principles. The stated purpose of yesterday’s bills is that those arrested and detained against serious criminal offences should not eventually diminish the constitutional trust of the Indian people. But different provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 that deal with disqualifications have taken shape very much with this goal, and that of countering the criminalization of politics.
PC: IIMT
- Notably, shifting the goalpost from conviction to custody, as the bills propose, is contraindicated by the foundational legal principle: Innocent until proven guilty. As current provisions stand, they seem to skirt around the idea of due process. Yes, there’s an argument that those accused of serious crimes should resign anyway. But a law that makes dismissal contingent upon a month’s incarceration doesn’t account for the utmost importance accorded to the will of the people – those elected can be found unfit to hold office only after conviction. Needless to mention, JPC should work from this principle and recommend amendments. Inarguably, crime and politics remain friendly. Only parties can change these outcomes. Hopefully, they will. Period.
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://kanigas.com/innocent-till-proven-guilty-should-be-upheld-at-all-times/&media=https://kanigas.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/coi.png&description=India's proposed 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill which would remove Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, or ministers from office if they remain in custody for 30 days for offenses punishable by 5+ years imprisonment. The opposition criticized the bill and it was sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, with concerns raised about shifting from conviction-based to custody-based disqualification potentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.){kind=link}