‘Flawed, deeply troubling’: Editorials on Bills to remove arrested ministers

In a heated Lok Sabha session on Wednesday, Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three Bills aimed at disqualifying central and state ministers – including the prime minister and chief ministers – if they are accused of corruption or serious crimes and have been in custody for 30 days or more.

Unsurprisingly, there was an uproar. Opposition MPs were outraged, NDA MPs pushed back. Following the ruckus, the Lok Sabha referred the three Bills – the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill – to a Joint Committee of Parliament.

While the JAC will get back with its recommendations, editorials in English dailies called the new legislation “deeply troubling” and “flawed”. The editorials pointed out that the new laws go against basic legal principles and give concentrated power to the union government. 

The Indian Express said the Bills were  “deeply troubling pieces of legislation”, especially “in a climate in which the executive has shown little compunction in weaponising central agencies to target political opponents”. 

“[The bills] arrogate to the Executive expanded and concentrated state power and severely shrink safeguards, checks and balances. They undermine the principle of separation of powers and violate federal autonomy,” the editorial said. 

It also said the Bills “only add to the dubious arsenal” of the BJP at the centre, especially given the “starkly disproportionate targeting by the CBI and ED of Opposition leaders” since 2014. 

“The Bills, which have gone to a joint parliamentary panel, deserve to travel no further. They should be rejected,” the editorial said. 

The editorial in Hindustan Times, headlined “Desirable, not feasible”, said the Constitution Amendment Bill might have been desirable in an “ideal state with robust institutions and apolitical investigation agencies”. But the current state of affairs is “far from ideal”. 

“Rarely has the Indian polity been more polarised: There is a complete breakdown of any working relationship between the government and the Opposition; public trust in political allegations and counter allegations are at an all-time-low; most institutions and police forces have been politicised; and the highest court in the land has repeatedly questioned the credibility of probes conducted by federal agencies. Against such a backdrop, it is not difficult to imagine that the three bills can turn the police or probe bodies into political weapons used to destabilise unfriendly governments in the same way that Article 356 once did,” the editorial said. 

The Tribune’s editorial said the Bills were “fraught with dangerous consequences” and that they strike “at the heart of parliamentary democracy and constitutional federalism”.

“The Bills, now referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, presuppose guilt at the arrest and detention stage – even before the trial has begun. This is quite problematic with regard to Central probe agencies such as the CBI and the ED, which continue to be under judicial scrutiny for alleged overreach,” it said. 

It added: “There is a dire need to look at ways to ensure that erring ministers don't cling on to their chairs. A fair, time-bound probe and an expedited trial are a must to prove their guilt or innocence. A legal framework for morality in politics should have firm legs to stand on: it must not be based on mere suspicion or political vendetta.”

Finally, The Times of India published an editorial today that said the Bills propose to shift “the goalpost from conviction to custody” which is “contraindicated by foundational legal principle: Innocent until proven guilty”. 

“As current provisions stand, they seem to skirt around the idea of due process. Yes, there’s an argument that those accused of serious crimes should resign anyway. But a law that makes dismissal contingent upon a month’s incarceration doesn’t account for the utmost importance accorded to the will of the people – those elected can be found unfit to hold office only after conviction,” the editorial said. “JPC should work from this principle and recommend amendments…Only parties can change these outcomes. As for laws, they should pay heed to well-understood principles.”

Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.