Will Congress join? Opposition pushes united boycott of JPC on 130th Amendment Bill

Initially, the Congress had signalled willingness to join the panel, but internal debates have shifted its stance. Some leaders argue that as the principal Opposition party, it cannot afford to be absent from a committee deciding on a matter of constitutional importance. Others counter that joining would break Opposition unity and hand the BJP legitimacy for what they call a politically motivated law.

The worry, according to PTI, is that a boycott may allow the ruling side to brand Congress as 'soft on corruption,' while participation may alienate its allies.

INDIA bloc’s boycott line

At least three Opposition parties, Trinamool Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT) and the Aam Aadmi Party, have openly said they will not join the JPC. The Samajwadi Party has hinted at following the same approach.

News18 reported that the Rashtriya Janata Dal, DMK and Shiv Sena (UBT) are also against the panel, alleging the amendment is designed to destabilise Opposition-led state governments.

If these parties hold their ground, the government could be left with a JPC heavily dominated by its own members, weakening the credibility of the scrutiny process.

Government’s outreach

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju is expected to personally reach out to Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge, senior leader Jairam Ramesh, SP’s Akhilesh Yadav, AAP’s Arvind Kejriwal, and TMC’s Mamata Banerjee to persuade them to nominate members.

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had earlier said that no party had officially written to him announcing a boycott, even as several made public statements rejecting the committee.

What the Bills propose

On the final day of the Monsoon Session, Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three Bills in the Lok Sabha:

Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill
Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill

The most contentious is the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, which seeks to ensure governments are not 'run from jail.' It mandates the automatic removal of top executive office-holders, the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Ministers, if they remain in custody for 30 consecutive days in serious criminal cases.

Why Opposition is resisting

Opposition leaders argue that the amendment is unconstitutional and open to misuse, allowing the Centre to use politically motivated arrests to topple governments.

They point to recent crackdowns on Opposition leaders and say the 30-day clause could be weaponised against them while they are still under trial, without any conviction.

For the BJP, the legislation is being projected as a clean governance measure aimed at ensuring public trust in executive offices.

How other countries handle it

The government has cited global practices to defend the amendment:

United Kingdom: Ministers are expected to resign if charged with serious offences, though it’s a convention, not law.

United States: Office-holders often resign if indicted, though legal disqualification comes only after conviction.

Pakistan: The Constitution disqualifies those convicted of crimes involving 'moral turpitude,' with courts sometimes barring leaders even under investigation.

In India, under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, lawmakers lose their seat only after conviction in specific cases. Custody during trial does not automatically remove them from office. The 130th Amendment Bill seeks to change this for members of the executive.

If Opposition parties refuse to nominate members, the government may still constitute the JPC without them. That would likely sharpen political divisions, with the ruling side pushing ahead while the INDIA bloc accuses it of bulldozing democratic norms.