A Constitutional amendment aiming to uphold probity in public life, or to serve as a tool of distraction?

Declaring the intention behind the move was to check the decline in morality in public life and inject integrity in the body politic, Home Minister Amit Shah said.

At a time when the combined might of opposition stalled Parliament and raised the heat over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, the Narendra Modi government sought to turn the tables by introducing a Constitutional amendment.

Three Bills, to amend the Constitution, seek to mandate that a Chief Minister, Ministers, and even the Prime Minister, must be removed from office if they are detained for 30 straight days for an offence punishable by at least five years in prison. The proposed Bills would make this removal automatic once the threshold is reached, regardless of the legal status of their case. However, the person so removed can be reinstated.

The move occurred on the penultimate day of the five-week monsoon session, which ended on August 21. The sittings of the July 21-August 21 session were severely affected, with the opposition stalling proceedings over the electoral rolls revision, which it charged had deleted many eligible voters ahead of the state assembly polls due this autumn.

BJP’s stated rationale

Declaring the intention behind the move was to check the decline in morality in public life and inject integrity in the body politic, Home Minister Amit Shah said, even the office of the Prime Minister would fall under the ambit of the proposed law.

The BJP and its supporters have been vociferous in claiming that while the party leadership remains committed to bringing back moral values and probity in public life, the opposition was rallying against the move.

Opposition’s fear

Notwithstanding the pious intention, the opposition collectively expressed concern that the proposed law could become an additional weapon in the armoury of the state. They worry that if states or opposition leaders are targeted and kept in custody for 30 days on serious charges, they would be compelled to step down even if the case falls flat.

The underlying apprehension is that opposition leaders and their governments could become victims of the powerful Centre and its law-enforcing agencies. They cited numerous instances of how the Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the Income Tax were unleashed on leaders opposed to the governing coalition.

Timing

The Bills were moved after the Speaker granted a waiver to the government from the rules that required at least a week’s notice and circulation of the proposed laws for members to study.

 These Bills have been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for oversight and greater scrutiny and a report on the Bills is expected in the next session. On the face of it, the moot question is what was the tearing hurry to introduce Bills of this nature, with far-reaching consequences for elected officials facing criminal charges, when there was practically little debate in the public realm about it?

The ostensible justification was the unusual occurrence of the Aam Aadmi Party convenor Arvind Kejriwal continuing as the Chief Minister even after he was jailed for his alleged role in the Delhi liquor case. Kejriwal continued for nearly six months and stepped down only after his bail conditions limited his role.

The other recent case is of Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji, who, after arrest, remained a Minister without portfolio, leading to a showdown between the Governor and Chief Minister Stalin.

On the political plane, it is difficult to comprehend how a person in public life can continue in office if arrested and kept behind bars for 30 straight days. There is bound to be pressure within the political party or the combination against continuation. Instances like that of Kejriwal are indeed rare in national politics.  

Moral standards and public life

Several years ago, socialist leader Devi Lal in public rallies often emphasised that the battle of public perception and respect of the people was necessary to govern. The Hindi phrase was “Loklaj se hi, Lokraj chalta hai”.   In fact, since the beginning of parliamentary democracy in independent India, there are numerous instances when sitting ministers had to quit office, either voluntarily or under the direction of the party, after their name surfaced in serious charges of misuse of office.

During the Constituent Assembly-Legislative, PM Jawaharlal Nehru’s Finance Minister, R.K Shanmukham Chetty, had to step down following some irregularity connected to a businessperson whose case was kept out of scrutiny. Announcing his resignation this month, 77 years ago, Chetty maintained that while the issue was technical in nature, he put in his papers stating, “we must set absolutely the highest standards of integrity in public life, not even the second-rate of standards would be sufficient for us. It must be absolutely the first-rate. ”

On his part, PM Nehru told the House, while it could be the case was dealt with carelessly or not, it was a ‘grave error’ that could cause suspicion in the public mind and could not be passed over. The high moral stance within a year of the country achieving freedom set the bar high, and there are many instances when chief ministers and ministers stepped down following serious allegations of graft or misuse of office, preferring to go through the legal process and also to the court of the people.

Lokpal’s track record 

Over a decade ago, Jantar Mantar, the country’s popular protest square in the national capital, witnessed a civil society uprising against corruption, which eventually led to the creation of the ombudsman Lokpal. The 2013 Act became operational with the setting up of the office in 2019.

According to a report published this January, on the fifth anniversary of Lokpal, it ordered an investigation in 24 cases and prosecution in six cases. In five years, it said the Lokpal registered at least 2,320 defect-free complaints, of which 226 were lodged between April 1 and December 31, 2024. The data further claimed that of these complaints, some 3 percent were against the Prime Minister, union ministers or MPs, 21 percent against various groups of government officials, 35 percent against members/chairpersons of central government bodies, and the rest 41 percent against a category of others, including state government officials.

Besides the Lokpal, the country has other agencies like the Central Vigilance Commission, Central Bureau of Investigation, Income Tax and Enforcement Directorate, and state police to fight corruption and misuse of office, on receipt of a complaint.

Bills a ‘major distraction’

While an opposition Congress leader dubbed the move a ‘major distraction’,  further movement on the Bills would have to go through two rounds of scrutiny, the Joint Committee tasked with oversight, and then the government would have to ensure its passage in both the Houses with a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. The political battle has just begun, and an indication of early stirrings on it came from Trinamool Congress, whose MPs hinted at not joining the JPC.