 |
|
The proposed Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, ostensibly introduced in the “public interest, welfare, and good governance,” is a thinly veiled attempt to subvert India’s federal structure and cripple opposition-led state governments. Its introduction at a time when central agencies are increasingly deployed against political opponents suggests a calculated strategy to misuse the law for ulterior motives. The bill seeks to amend the Constitution to allow for the removal of ministers facing criminal charges or arrests, regardless of whether they have been convicted in a court of law. This deviates sharply from the established legal principle enshrined in Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, which links disqualification and punishment to court convictions, not mere accusations. The bill's invocation of “constitutional morality” is a particularly egregious distortion, as it directly contradicts the fundamental principles of justice and fairness that underpin the Constitution itself. In the current political climate, where the legal system can be manipulated to target individuals with frivolous charges, the proposed legislation poses a grave threat to democratic norms and the principles of natural justice. The potential for abuse is staggering, as political opponents could be easily targeted with fabricated charges, arrested, and detained for extended periods, resulting in their immediate removal from office. The absence of a sunset clause or a review mechanism further exacerbates the dangers, as it would allow the law to be used indefinitely to stifle dissent and consolidate power. Furthermore, the bill lacks any provision for compensation in cases where the arrest is found to be malicious, which would effectively grant impunity to those who abuse the legal process for political gain. The inclusion of the term 'constitutional morality' is ironically manipulative. The invocation of such a principle, which is inherently subjective and open to interpretation, further demonstrates the bill's intention to bypass established legal procedures and undermine the rule of law. The bill does not define what constitutes a violation of constitutional morality, leaving it vulnerable to arbitrary and politically motivated interpretations. This ambiguity could be exploited to target ministers whose political views or actions are deemed objectionable by the ruling party, regardless of whether they have committed any actual crime. The bill's proponents may argue that it is necessary to maintain the integrity of government and prevent corruption, but the reality is that it would create a system where political rivals can be easily silenced and their reputations tarnished through false accusations and politically motivated arrests. The implications of such a system for the health of Indian democracy are profound and deeply concerning. The potential for the bill to be weaponized against opposition parties is not merely theoretical; it is a real and present danger, given the current political climate in India. The central government has been accused of using investigative agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to target political opponents, often with little or no evidence. These agencies have been used to raid the homes and offices of opposition leaders, arrest them on flimsy charges, and subject them to lengthy and often humiliating investigations. The proposed bill would further empower these agencies by allowing them to effectively remove ministers from office simply by arresting them, regardless of whether they have been convicted of any crime. This would create a system where political opponents can be easily silenced and their careers ruined through the abuse of power.
Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Indian Constitution meticulously delineate the procedures and prerequisites for ministerial appointment and removal, explicitly vesting such power in “the President on the advice of the Prime Minister” and “the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister.” The proposed amendment flagrantly breaches this constitutional intent, undermining the delicate balance of power between the executive and the legislature. The explicit intention of the Constitution is to ensure that ministers are appointed and removed based on the confidence of the legislature, not on the whims of the executive branch or on the basis of unsubstantiated criminal charges. The proposed amendment would effectively bypass the legislature and grant the executive branch the power to remove ministers at will, thereby undermining the principles of parliamentary democracy. Moreover, Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution enshrine fundamental rights, including equality before the law, freedom of speech, due process, and personal liberty. The automatic removal of ministers based on unproven criminal charges directly contravenes these fundamental guarantees. The proposed amendment effectively reverses the burden of proof and undermines the presumption of innocence, which are cornerstones of the Indian legal system. Under the proposed law, a minister would be presumed guilty until proven innocent, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the absence of a sunset clause or review mechanism means that the law could be used indefinitely to target political opponents, even after they have been acquitted of the charges against them. The lack of any provision for compensation in cases where the arrest is found to be malicious further underscores the bill's disregard for fundamental rights and the principles of fairness. The bill's proponents may argue that it is necessary to combat corruption and ensure the integrity of government, but the reality is that it would create a system where political opponents can be easily silenced and their reputations tarnished through false accusations and politically motivated arrests. The implications of such a system for the health of Indian democracy are profound and deeply concerning. The bill also lacks clarity on several key issues, such as the definition of “criminal charges” and the criteria for determining whether an arrest is justified. This lack of clarity could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law, with certain ministers being targeted for political reasons while others are allowed to go free. The bill also fails to address the issue of preventive detention, which is often used to detain political opponents without charge. The proposed amendment could be used to justify the removal of ministers who have been detained under preventive detention laws, even if they have not been charged with any crime. This would further undermine the principles of due process and the rule of law.
The absence of a sunset or review clause in the proposed legislation is particularly alarming. Once a minister is removed under this law, they cannot automatically return to their position even if they are subsequently acquitted or granted bail after the 30-day period stipulated in the bill. This effectively punishes individuals before they have been found guilty of any crime, violating fundamental principles of justice. The lack of a provision for compensation if the arrest is found to be malicious further compounds the injustice, as it provides no recourse for those who have been wrongly accused and deprived of their office. In fact, this lack of accountability will only embolden the misuse of preventive detention and laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) UAPA. Preventive detention laws allow the government to detain individuals without charge for extended periods, often based on vague or unsubstantiated allegations. The proposed amendment could be used to justify the removal of ministers who have been detained under preventive detention laws, even if they have not been charged with any crime. This would further undermine the principles of due process and the rule of law. The potential for abuse is further exacerbated by the fact that the bill does not define what constitutes a “malicious” arrest. This lack of clarity could make it difficult for individuals who have been wrongly arrested to seek compensation, as they would have to prove that the arrest was motivated by malice, which can be a difficult task. The bill also fails to address the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutors who bring charges against ministers for political reasons could be immune from accountability, as the bill does not provide any mechanism for punishing such misconduct. This could create a system where prosecutors are incentivized to bring charges against political opponents, even if they lack sufficient evidence. The proposed amendment also raises serious concerns about the independence of the judiciary. If ministers can be removed from office simply by being arrested, the judiciary may be reluctant to grant them bail or acquit them, for fear of being seen as undermining the government. This could undermine the integrity of the judicial system and make it more difficult for individuals to receive a fair trial. The bill's proponents may argue that it is necessary to combat corruption and ensure the integrity of government, but the reality is that it would create a system where political opponents can be easily silenced and their reputations tarnished through false accusations and politically motivated arrests. The implications of such a system for the health of Indian democracy are profound and deeply concerning. The bill represents a dangerous erosion of the rule of law and a significant threat to the rights and freedoms of all Indian citizens.
Source: M A Baby writes: Bill to remove arrested ministers is an attack on Opposition, not corruption