Cleansing Politics or Weakening Democracy?
The Narendra Modi government’s latest attempt to reshape the political landscape has ignited intense debate. The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, tabled by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, proposes to disqualify the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and other Ministers if they spend 30 days in judicial custody on “serious charges.” Conviction is not necessary.
The provision, echoed in the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill and the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, has quickly become a political flashpoint.
Opposition MPs tore up copies of the bills in the Lok Sabha, accusing the Centre of pushing India towards authoritarianism. Their charge: the proposed law could be used to destabilise governments led by non-BJP parties.
“It would take little more than a motivated case and prolonged custody to remove a Chief Minister from office,” a senior Congress leader told The Coastal Times after the heated session.
The government insists the move is rooted in public sentiment. BJP leaders argue that citizens expect politicians accused of serious crimes to step aside. “People expect clean politics. If leaders are in jail for grave offences, they should not continue to hold high office,” a BJP spokesperson said.
While the intention appears noble, constitutional scholars warn of grave risks. “This bill bypasses the courts and undermines the principle of separation of powers,” says Prof. Faizan Mustafa, a noted jurist. “It equates custody with guilt and strikes at the core of the rule of law.”
Custody, experts point out, is not the same as conviction. Preventive detention and politically influenced arrests are not uncommon in India, raising concerns that due process could be sacrificed for expedience.
Opposition parties have long alleged that central investigative agencies are misused against rivals. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and Governors in Opposition-ruled states have all faced criticism for acting in ways that appear aligned with the Centre’s interests.
Political analyst Sanjay Kumar warns that even allies within the ruling coalition could be at risk. “The same law could be used against any ambitious NDA leader challenging the central leadership. This is about centralising power, not just cleaning up politics,” he said.
The proposal has now been referred to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee. Whether it tempers the provisions or clears them unaltered will shape the trajectory of this debate.
Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi struck a cautionary note: “Raising political standards is a worthy objective. But it must be done without undermining democratic safeguards.”
India’s democracy has often sought to balance political morality with constitutional principles. The current proposal highlights the danger of collapsing that balance. While the public demand for accountability in politics is undeniable, the method of equating custody with guilt risks eroding the very safeguards that protect democratic institutions.
The coming weeks will test whether Parliament chooses the harder path of reform through due process, or the easier but more dangerous route of shortcuts that compromise constitutional principles.