UPSC DAW Mains Answer Writing 2025 25th August

UPSC DAW Mains Answer Writing 2025 25th August

Question

The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 mandates resignation or removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Ministers if detained for over 30 days in serious offences. Critically examine its implications for ensuring moral integrity in politics while upholding constitutional safeguards of due process. (10 marks, 150 words) 

Model Answer

Introduction:  

  • Criminalisation of politics is a deep-rooted challenge where present Parliament has 46% of MPs with declared criminal cases (Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)). To address this, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 seeks to ensure that Ministers, including the PM/CM, automatically lose office if detained beyond 30 consecutive days in cases punishable with five years or more. While the Bill aims to strengthen moral integrity in governance, it also raises questions of due process, presumption of innocence, and democratic accountability. 

 Ensuring Moral Integrity in Politics - Potential Gains: 

  • Cleansing the Executive: Prevents individuals in custody from wielding power, restoring faith in governance. 

  • Judicial Support: Supreme Court in Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) urged political leaders to avoid appointing Ministers with serious criminal charges, stressing constitutional morality. 

  • Public Trust: By codifying accountability, the Bill aligns with the spirit of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), which emphasised integrity as a constitutional value. 

  • Several democracies (E.g., UK’s Ministerial Code) expect resignation upon serious allegations, strengthening the ethical dimension of office. 

 Concerns over Constitutional Safeguards of Due Process: 

  • Presumption of Innocence (Article 21): Removal on mere detention dilutes the principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. 

  • Asymmetry with Legislators: Under Representation of the People Act, 1951, disqualification arises only upon conviction (Section 8).  

  • But a legislator is disqualified immediately upon conviction, a principle established by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2013 Lily Thomas v. Union of India judgment, which struck down the provision allowing them to continue in office pending appeal. 

  • Executive Discretion & Politicisation: Bill empowers PM/CM to advise removal, but automatic removal after 30 days may be politically misused against opponents (especially in opposition-ruled States). 

  • Governance Instability: ‘Revolving door’ risk where frequent resignations and reappointments if leaders are arrested and bailed, leading to instability. 

  • Scope of Offences: The five-year punishment threshold may include relatively minor offences (E.g., protest-related cases), risking misuse. 

 Balancing Integrity with Fairness - Way Forward: 

  • Charge-Framing Threshold: As suggested by the Election Commission (2016), disqualification/removal could be linked to framing of charges by a competent court, filtering frivolous arrests. 

  • Independent Oversight Mechanism: An impartial body (E.g., tribunal or judicial panel) could review whether conditions for removal are met, insulating the process from politics. 

  • Targeting Serious Offences: Restrict applicability to crimes of moral turpitude, corruption, and heinous offences instead of all crimes above five years. 

  • Temporary Suspension Model: Instead of outright removal, suspend ministerial functions during detention, which would be similar to suspension rules in civil services under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 

  • Party Reforms: NITI Aayog’s ‘Strategy for New India @75’ emphasised internal party reforms and curbing criminalisation at the stage of candidate selection. Parties must show self-discipline in ticket distribution. 

 Conclusion:  

  • The 130th Amendment Bill, 2025 is a bold attempt to reinforce moral probity in politics, but its overbroad formulation risks undermining fairness, presumption of innocence, and democratic stability. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar cautioned, ‘Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated.’ A calibrated approach will ensure that integrity in public life is upheld without sacrificing constitutional justice.