Region 
 

New Delhi

Reform or Overreach?

Marketed as a reform for transparency, the 130th Amendment seeks to disqualify convicted politicians, sparking debate over ethics, justice, and political power.

By Muhammad Omar Iftikhar | October 2025

Amid the rising levels of corruption, immoral acts, and illegal intentions prevailing in the political setup, which remain a part and parcel of this domain for taking undue advantage or using one’s status, India has moved a step ahead to curb such ill practices. The 130th Constitution Amendment Bill is raising eyebrows across the political fabric in India. It was recently passed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, which aims to prevent chief ministers and ministers from continuing their official activities after being convicted of criminal cases. While being a heated topic of debate among the political circle, this bill hits at the central issues of democratic accountability, morality, and constitutional decorum.

The recent session in the Lok Sabha took a chaotic turn when Home Minister Amit Shah presented the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill. Opposition members disrupted proceedings by shouting, throwing papers, and creating disorder. Supporters of the Bill argue that such reactions reflect discomfort among leaders who may be affected by stricter rules targeting criminal and corrupt practices.

The proposed amendment makes it clear: if an MP, Chief Minister, or even the Prime Minister is convicted of a serious crime and spends 30 days in jail, they will lose their seat and position. By updating Articles 75, 164, and 239AA, the Bill aims to raise ethical standards in Indian politics and keep those with criminal records out of power.

However, the Modi government has called the 130th Amendment Bill as a major step in New Delhi’s fight against corruption. Historically speaking, India, like other countries, has been experiencing its politicians facing criminal charges while continuing to hold office. As per the report by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), as many as 40% of Members of Parliament (MPs) face criminal charges. Many of them are involved in serious offences. However, they continue to serve in their respective offices as the constitutional and legal framework does not deem them to give up their power.

Two distinct categories have emerged following the passing of this bill. Those supporting the bill call it a necessary tool to bring the much-needed reforms in the country. Those opposing the step consider it a draconian measure that will abate federalism and could be used as a weapon against political opponents. Through the implementation of the 130th Amendment Bill, the Indian government argues that the loophole provides politicians with criminal records to bypass the state’s machinery and laws to either delay or bypass trials and influence witnesses, therefore, corroding public faith in democratic institutions.


Looking at the 130th Amendment Bill from the eyes of the constitution, it implies that public office is not an inherent right but a privilege. Its sanctity and decorum must be maintained and preserved under all circumstances. From a constitutional standpoint, the Bill relies on the principle that public office is a privilege, not an inherent right. The Prime Minister can appoint ministers under Article 75, even if they have criminal convictions—unless disqualified by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, the RPA disqualifies an MP or MLA from contesting elections if found guilty of certain offenses. However, it does not force their resignation from ministerial posts when an appeal is filed.

In India’s federal system, central agencies like the CBI, ED, or Income Tax Department often target chief ministers with politically driven cases.

In this regard, the 130th Amendment aims to fill this gap by directly connecting ministerial positions with moral eligibility – a link that should remain active not only in India but across all nations. Supporters believe this holds political leaders to stricter standards than ordinary citizens, given their powerful role in shaping laws and governance.

Opponents have resisted the Bill, claiming it is an authoritarian step that can be misused. The Bill challenges the notion of “innocent until proven guilty.” In the overburdened Indian judicial system, conviction at the lower court level is often not the final word. Higher courts later clear many politicians facing criminal charges due to insufficient evidence or politically motivated accusations. Disqualifying them from ministerial roles right after conviction could unfairly punish them before the legal process is complete.

Opposition leaders argue that the amendment gives the central government excessive power to undermine state governments. In India’s federal system, central agencies like the CBI, ED, or Income Tax Department often target chief ministers with politically driven cases. If a lower court conviction can remove them from office, it opens the door for misuse, allowing the ruling party at the Centre to potentially dislodge opposition-led states. These concerns are heightened by growing allegations that central agencies are being used for political gain.

Opposition leaders also debate that the Bill reflects a broader trend of eroding democratic institutions under the pretext of reform. They cite the 2023 disqualification of Rahul Gandhi—following a defamation conviction later paused by the Supreme Court—as a warning sign of how justice can be weaponized. In their view, the 130th Amendment risks formalizing a system where legal tools are used to silence political discord.

Read More