Amit Shah defends jail clause in Constitution Amendment Bill

New Delhi, Aug 25: Union Home Minister Amit Shah has defended the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, which seeks to disqualify a Prime Minister, Chief Minister or minister from office if they remain in custody for more than 30 days on serious criminal charges. In an interview to a news agency, Shah said the measure reflects Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s belief that no one should govern from jail.

The proposed amendment, covering ministers at the Centre and in states, defines “serious crime” as offences carrying punishment of over five years. If bail is granted within 30 days, there will be no action; if not, the post will be vacated. Shah said those acquitted or granted bail after the 30-day period could return to office by taking oath again.

Shah stressed that the bill is not directed against any opposition party, pointing out that it includes the Prime Minister within its ambit. He contrasted this with the 39th Amendment brought during the Congress era, which exempted the then Prime Minister from legal scrutiny. “Modi ji has brought even his own office under this law,” Shah said.

He accused the opposition of obstructing parliamentary functioning by refusing to allow the bill to be tabled, despite his assurance that it would be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for wider debate. “Both Houses are meant for discussion, not uproar,” he said, adding that denying introduction of a government bill was undemocratic.

The home minister also pointed to precedents, noting that elected representatives already lose membership of Parliament under the Representation of People Act if sentenced to two years or more. He said the amendment would strengthen moral standards in politics, as the Constitution’s framers never imagined leaders governing from prison. Criticising opposition parties for calling the move political vendetta, Shah recalled that CBI probes against leaders were initiated even during Congress-led governments. He also cited his own example, saying he resigned when charges were filed against him, and only returned to constitutional office after being fully acquitted. Shah maintained that the bill is a matter of principle and morality, not politics. He expressed confidence that many opposition members would ultimately support it in Parliament. “The people are watching who wants debate and who wants disruption,” he said.