 |
|
The recently tabled Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill and its related counterparts, now under review by a joint committee of the Lok Sabha, ostensibly aim to address political corruption and uphold constitutional morality. However, beneath this veneer of good intentions lie deeply problematic legislative proposals that threaten to concentrate power within the Executive branch, erode essential safeguards, and undermine the fundamental principles of separation of powers and federal autonomy. The core issue lies in the Bill's provision for the automatic removal of ministers, including chief ministers and the Prime Minister, from office if they are arrested and held in custody for 30 consecutive days for an offense punishable by five years or more imprisonment. This radical departure from the established legal principle of disqualification only upon conviction raises serious concerns about the potential for abuse and the erosion of due process. The Supreme Court, in the landmark Lily Thomas case of 2013, clearly established that disqualification from holding public office and contesting elections occurs only upon conviction with a sentence of two years or more. The proposed Bills effectively bypass this crucial safeguard, allowing for removal based solely on arrest and detention, regardless of whether guilt has been proven in a court of law. In the current political climate, where central agencies have been increasingly accused of being used as tools to target political opponents, this provision is particularly alarming. The weakening of federal guard rails further exacerbates the situation, creating an environment where the ruling party at the Centre could potentially weaponize this legislation to silence dissent and consolidate its power. The history of Indian politics is replete with instances of chief ministers resigning in the face of corruption allegations, as seen with Lalu Prasad in Bihar and Hemant Soren in Jharkhand. However, these were ultimately political decisions, reflecting the interplay between the political party, the individual politician, and the electorate. While the judicial process is undoubtedly slow, circumventing due process, overturning the presumption of innocence, and granting unchecked power to the central government is not the solution. It creates a system ripe for abuse and undermines the very foundations of a fair and just legal system. The argument that this is necessary to combat corruption ignores the potential for the law to be misused for political gain, leading to a further erosion of public trust in the institutions of government.
The misuse of central agencies for political purposes is not a new phenomenon in India. The CBI, for instance, has been derisively referred to as the “Congress Bureau of Investigation” and a “caged parrot” during the UPA era, highlighting the long-standing issue of political interference in law enforcement. However, the scale of this distortion has arguably intensified in recent years. Since 2014, there has been a noticeable and disproportionate targeting of Opposition leaders by agencies such as the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). A pattern has emerged where individuals facing investigations often find themselves swiftly exonerated upon joining the ruling BJP, raising serious questions about the integrity and impartiality of these investigations. The ED, in particular, has gained notoriety as a prime instrument of vindictive politics. Armed with stringent laws that make bail exceedingly difficult to obtain, the agency has a demonstrably low conviction rate, suggesting that many of its investigations may be politically motivated rather than based on solid evidence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly criticized the ED for its actions, as exemplified by its rebuke in the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation case. This raises serious concerns about the agency's adherence to due process and its susceptibility to political influence. The proposed Bills, by further empowering the Executive and weakening safeguards against arbitrary action, would only exacerbate this already troubling situation. The automatic removal provision could be used to target political opponents, even in the absence of credible evidence, creating a chilling effect on dissent and undermining the democratic process. The argument that this is necessary to ensure accountability ignores the fact that existing legal mechanisms, including judicial review and parliamentary oversight, already provide avenues for holding ministers accountable for their actions. Instead of strengthening these mechanisms, the Bills seek to bypass them altogether, concentrating power in the hands of the Executive and creating a system where political opponents can be easily targeted and silenced.
The proposed legislation, therefore, represents a dangerous departure from established legal principles and a significant threat to the balance of power in India. By allowing for the automatic removal of ministers based solely on arrest and detention, the Bills undermine the presumption of innocence, circumvent due process, and create a system ripe for political abuse. The history of political interference in law enforcement, coupled with the recent trend of disproportionate targeting of Opposition leaders, raises serious concerns about the potential for this legislation to be used as a tool for silencing dissent and consolidating power. The argument that this is necessary to combat corruption ignores the fact that existing legal mechanisms already provide avenues for holding ministers accountable. Instead of strengthening these mechanisms, the Bills seek to bypass them altogether, concentrating power in the hands of the Executive and creating a system where political opponents can be easily targeted and silenced. The erosion of federal autonomy is another significant concern. By granting the Centre the power to remove ministers from state governments, the Bills undermine the principle of federalism and threaten the independence of state governments. This could lead to increased political instability and further strain the relationship between the Centre and the states. In conclusion, the proposed Bills represent a dangerous and ill-conceived attempt to address political corruption. By undermining fundamental legal principles, eroding safeguards against abuse, and concentrating power in the hands of the Executive, the Bills pose a significant threat to democracy and the rule of law in India. They should be rejected in their current form and replaced with legislation that strengthens existing legal mechanisms and promotes transparency and accountability without sacrificing fundamental rights and freedoms. A more nuanced and carefully considered approach is needed to address the complex issue of political corruption, one that respects the principles of due process, federalism, and the separation of powers.
Source: Express View: New Bills on ministers with criminal charges are bad faith, bad law