Contentious Issues Surrounding the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill Regarding Ministerial Tenure and Custody
The Union Government introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill to amend Articles 75, 164, and 239AA. It proposes that any Minister in custody for 30 consecutive days for an offense punishable by five years or more must be removed from office. Critics argue this grants excessive discretionary power to enforcement agencies, potentially allowing the "arrest" process to be used as a political tool against opposition leaders. The bill also intersects with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and raises concerns about the "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" principle and the right to liberty.
Key Points
- The bill mandates the removal of a Minister if they remain in custody for 30 consecutive days for specific offenses.
- It affects the Union Council of Ministers, State Councils of Ministers, and the special administrative provisions for Delhi.
- Legal experts worry that the bill doesn't account for 'default bail' under Section 167(2) of the CrPC/BNSS.
- The bill could potentially undermine the presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21.
Exam Facts
- The bill seeks to amend Articles 75 (Union Ministers), 164 (State Ministers), and 239AA (Delhi).
- The threshold for removal is 30 consecutive days in custody for offenses punishable by 5+ years of imprisonment.
- The Supreme Court case Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI (2022) emphasized guidelines for arrest under Section 41 of the CrPC.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.