Can PM or CM Govern from Jail: Amit Shah
Parliament witnessed strong protests, with the Opposition terming the bill "unconstitutional" and alleging that it was a tool for the BJP to misuse central agencies
By : Amresh Srivastava
Update: 2025-08-25 04:39 GMT
New Delhi: Flagging that no government should function from jail, Union home minister Amit Shah on Monday backed the newly introduced 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, which seeks the automatic removal of top elected officials held in custody for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges.
The home minister questioned whether it suits the dignity of the nation to have a government operating from prison and accused the Opposition of adopting political double standards by opposing the legislation.
“There is a provision in the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill 2025 that if the Prime Minister, Chief Minister, Minister of the Government of India, or Minister of a State Government is arrested on any serious charge and is not granted bail within 30 days, they will be relieved of their post,” Shah told a news agency. “If they do not resign, they will be automatically removed from office on the 31st day, as per law.”
He stressed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself insisted on including the PM’s office within the ambit of the Bill, in contrast to the 39th Amendment brought by Indira Gandhi, which had provided judicial immunity to the President, Vice-President, and the Prime Minister’s office.
While tabling the Bill in Parliament, Shah clarified that the Constitutional amendment will be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee of both Houses. A two-thirds majority is required for its passage, and when voting takes place, all parties will have the opportunity to present their views.
Noting that Parliament is meant for debate and discussion, not “noise and uproar,” he said the Opposition’s refusal to allow the bill to be presented was undemocratic, adding that they would have to explain their stance to the people of the country.
Asserting that the Bill is not directed against any Opposition party, Shah said it also applies to NDA chief ministers. He added that if bail is granted within 30 days, no action would be taken, and in cases of false charges, courts are available to provide relief.
“Should any Chief Minister, Prime Minister, or Minister run a government from jail? Is this good for the country’s democracy?” Shah asked, adding that if bail is granted after 30 days, the individual could once again take oath.
He pointed out that under the Representation of the People Act, any elected representative sentenced to two or more years in prison is disqualified from serving as an MP, a law in force since Independence. “The membership of many has been terminated and restored upon acquittal,” he said.
Highlighting that many leaders, ministers, and chief ministers had resigned and gone to jail since Independence, he said a new trend had emerged where leaders now refuse to resign even after incarceration. He cited the examples of Tamil Nadu ministers, as well as the Delhi Chief Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, who continued in office despite being in jail for several months.
He added that the Constitution’s framers could not have imagined a scenario where a Chief Minister would go to jail and continue holding office.
Recalling his own experience, Shah said that when he was accused in a case and summoned by the CBI, he resigned the very next day and did not take any office until cleared by the court. “I was not acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt; the case against me was dismissed. I was granted bail on the 96th day, but even then I did not take oath as home minister of Gujarat or assume any constitutional post until all charges were dismissed,” he said.
On the resignation of former Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, Shah said he stepped down citing health reasons but had discharged his duties as per the Constitution during his tenure.
Reiterating his criticism of the Opposition’s vice-presidential candidate, Justice (Retd.) B. Sudershan Reddy, Shah said the judge’s decision to disband Salwa Judum protected Naxals and deprived tribals of their right to self-defence. “Because of this, Naxalism survived for more than two decades when it was already on its last breath,” he alleged.
On Sunday, Shah had made similar remarks against the Opposition nominee for the upcoming Vice-Presidential election.
Irked by his comments, a group of former judges described them as “unfortunate” and advised political leaders to refrain from “name-calling,” warning that such statements impinged on the independence of the judiciary.