THE 130TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL, 2025:CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY, MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY,AND PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
ABSTRACT
The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, introduce at a critical time in India’s constitutional as well as in political development. The Bill, designed to make some important changes, has started a significant debate about important things like ministerial accountability, fairness in the constitution and the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. While the Bill main aims to enhance to make the government more transparency and
responsible, but its provisions raise challenging questions about how to maintain a fair balance between ethical governance and protecting people’s legal rights.
This article critically examines the constitutional and more effects of the 130th Amendment. Its cheeks whether the Bill follows the fundamental principle of constitutional morality, especially how the courts preserving democratic values and maintaining the integrity of public institutions. The discussion also explores that how the Amendment impact on the principle of collective ministerial responsibility according to the Articles 74 and 75 and also examining whether it changes or strengthens the existing framework for executive accountability. Moreover, the article also talks about the conflict between the public interest in probity and the individual’s right to be treated as innocent until it proven guilty- especially in the context of disqualifying public officials who face criminal charges.
By looking at legal ideas and comparing system, the article shows that any changes to the Constitution should be based on both fair and practical. The article concludes by offering suggestions on how to balance these different constitutional values in a way that make Indian’s democracy supports and protects, instead of weakening it.
KEYWORDS: Constitutional Amendment, Presumption of Innocence, Separations of Powers, Democratic Accountability, Constitutional Morality.
I. INTRODUCTION
The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, this is an important moment in the evolving narrative of India’s constitutional democracy. The government says this Bill is a strong step toward making things more transparent and honest. It brings in changes to how ministers are chosen, how they do their works and how they are held accountable-both at the national as well as state levels. However, the Bill’s introduction has sparked intense public and academic debate, especially about whether it’s truly aligns with the core constitutional values and
principles.
This article talks about three interrelated constitutional doctrine in the context of the 130th Amendment that are: constitutional morality, holding ministerial responsibility and the concept of treating people as innocent until proven guilty. Each of these three principles is essential for India’s democratic framework, but they can sometimes clash when applied in real-life government decisions. The bill appears to set official rules about the moral and ethical thresholds for public office. But the critics argue that it could be used for the political reasons to unfairly disqualify people and might take away their right to a fair legal process.
The Indian Constitution is open to interpretation, but it’s firmly built on the key values of justice, Freedom, equality, and dignity. Any constitutional amendment especially one that effects the functional of the executive must be evaluated through this normative framework. This article adopts a doctrinal-analytical approach, drawing upon constitutional provisions, landmark Supreme Court judgments, comparative legal systems, and relevant political commentary.
The main goal is not merely to evaluate the bill’s legality, but to see whether it supports or weakens the bigger vision of the Indian Constitution. The article raises a deeper issue that about the conflict between democratic morality and the legal rights and also between the collective political accountability and protecting each person’s rights under the Constitution.
II. THE 130TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: AN OVERVIEW
The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, which was introduced in Parliament with the aim of “strengthening ethical governance and accountability,” It suggests changes to structural reforms to how the ministers are appointed, retained, and how they can be removed- especially if they’re facing criminal charges or accused of unethical behavior. At its core, the heart of the Bill is proposed changes to Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution, which deal with how the govern are appointment and tenure of ministers at the Union and State levels, respectively.
A. KEY PROVISION
- Mandatory Suspension or Disqualification: The Bill says that any minister, at either the Union or state level, must resign or be suspended if a court officially takes up serious criminal charges against them, particularly those punishable with imprisonment of more than five years.
- Independent Ethics Committee: The Bill suggests setting up a neutral committee made up of members from different political sides. This group would advise the President or Governor on whether a minister should continue in office, which is based on ethical conduct and pending legal matters.
- More Transparency from Ministers: All the ministers would have to disclose their financial interests, pending litigation and any possible conflicts of interest in a public register.
- Time-Bound Adjudication: The Bill encourages the judiciary to dispose of criminal cases against public officials within a fixed time period- probably within one year after the case officially begins.
While the Bill doesn’t directly take away the powers of the judicial independence or legislative privileges, it significantly alters the convention of giving political leaders the freedom in the ministerial appointments. In theory, these provisions aim to take politics out of decisions that related to criminal charges against politicians and help rebuild public trust in
elected officials.
However, the critics argue that the Bill introduces for the unclear terms of “ethical misconduct” without proper legal definitions which could lead to unfair or politically motivated actions. Also, by creating up separate committees to judge how ministers behave, the Bill might undermine the doctrine of separation of powers. 1
The proposed amendment should be viewed in the larger context of India’s judicial history in shaping political morality, like in the case of Lily Thomas vs Union of India and past efforts to clean up politics through legislative reforms. This Bill represents an attempt to constitutionalize those efforts, but not without raising concerns about protecting democracy and legal rights.
III. CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY: UPHOLDING OR UNDERMINING DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES?
Over the past decade, the concept of the “constitutional morality” has played an one of the important roles in how India’s Constitution is interpreted. It refers to the adherence to the core principles and values of the Constitution- like justice, freedom, equality, dignity and the rule of law, even when public opinion or politics go in a different direction. political or popular sentiment suggests otherwise. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has used this
doctrine in several case decisions, such as in the case of Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018), 2 Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India (2018) 3 as well as Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (Sabarimala case, 2018). In each of these cases decisions, the Court made it very clear that constitutional morality should came before social customs, majority views, and political expediency. 4
The 130th Constitutional Amendment claims that it is based on this idea of constitutional morality. Its framers argue that those who hold public office should be held to a higher moral and ethical standards, even before the court delivered its verdict. In this way, the Bill appears to support constitutional morality by demanding that ministers, who hold public power, should not have serious criminal charges or ethical problem if we want to maintain institutional integrity.
However, a closer examination its reveals there are some big problems. Firstly, the constitutional morality can’t be selectively applied. It requires fairness, clear rules and consistent procedure, some elements that are missing from the Bill’s vague languages like “ethical misconduct” and “moral fitness.” These unclear phrases don’t have exact legal meanings and give a lot of power to the Ethics Oversight Committees to decide what’s right
or wrong. This vagueness risks replacing rule-based governance with arbitrary moral judgments, which violating the very principle the Bill is supposed to protect. Secondly, the constitutional morality shouldn’t be used as a way to police people’s morals or clean up politics for political reasons. While it calls for holding people accountability, it also requires protecting of individual rights, especially those guaranteed under the Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Freedom) as well as Article 21 which talks about (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). Since the Bill allows disqualification based on charges being officially recognized that rather than any conviction, that the Bill risks conflating accusation with guilt, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence and due process protections.
Thirdly, the constitutional morality has to be enforced by proper constitutional institutions, not by temporary or extra-constitutional bodies. The Ethics Oversight Committees created by the Bill could end up being used for political revenge if they aren’t protected from political pressure, instead of truly ensuring moral accountability.
In short, while the 130th Amendment claims to uphold constitutional morality, it risks using the concept for political ends unless it is backed by the clear laws, independent institutions and fair procedures. The true constitutional morality requires of both ethical governance as well as the legal integrity- not one at the cost of the other.
IV. MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: STRENGTHENING OR POLITICIZING RESPONSIBILITY?
The ministerial accountability is central to the India’s parliamentary democracy. In the Indian Constitution, under Articles 74 and 75 at the Union level and Articles 163 and 164 at the State level, requires that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the legislature. This principle ensures that the ministers, both individually and collectively, are remain answerable to the elected representatives of the people and thereby to the public. The
principle of “collective responsibility” is a key foundation of the executive accountability and is enforced through tools such as votes of no confidence, parliamentary questions as well as debates. 5
The 130th Constitutional Amendment claims to strengthen this accountability by establishing a formal process to review the ethical and criminal background of ministers. By requiring suspension or resignation when serious criminal charges are framed, the Bill seeks to transfer the burden of accountability from the political domain to a constitutional framework. The proposed Ethics Oversight Committee, designed as a bipartisan constitutional body, it aims to act as neutral and independent safeguard against executive excess or failure to addressing
misconduct.
However, trying to make accountability more formal and stricter could unintentionally make it more political and open to misuse.
A. Tension with Parliamentary Supremacy
The Ministers stay in the office as long as the President or Governor wants, but they take advice from the Prime Minister or Chief Minister.
The new committee in the Amendment may weaken the power of these elected leader’s authority.
This could create cause of conflict between executive discretion and committee oversight.
- Risk of Political Weaponization
There’s a risk that criminal Charges (not proven guilt) can be used to unfairly disqualification of ministers. People might use these criminal cases might be use as a political weapon to remove ministers. This could cause of political instability rather than true accountability.
- Undermining Democratic Choice
The Ministers are chosen by voters as their representatives.
Removing a minister before they are found guilty goes against what the voters
decided.
There are lack of clear rules or ways to appeal decisions, which makes the problem
worse. - Ambiguity in the Committee’s Role
The Ethics Committee’s role and also the powers aren’t clearly explained.
Without proper constitutional support or judicial review, the decisions may be unchecked or may be frequently challenged.
This leads to confusion and uncertainty in how the government works.
The 130th Amendment seeks to improve ministers more accountable, but it risks shifting it away from democratic politics processes to unclear government procedures. This could weaken both the authority of the executive and legislative’s ability to exercise oversight.
strengthening accountability should not compromise constitutional clarity or political
stability. 6
V. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE VS. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, has caused a lot of debated because it says ministers to step down as soon as they are charged with serious crimes, even before they are proven guilty. This provision goes against the basic right which is known as “presumption of innocence,” which means that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It important to mention that just a court accepts a case (called cognizance) doesn’t mean that the person is guilty, it only means the charges have been accepted.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s earlier decision in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013) case said that a minister should only be removed from his positions after being found guilty. But in this new Bill wants ministers to leave their posts even before conviction, which some see as unfair. 7
Supporters of the Bill argue that it will help to keep politics clean, because as many politicians face criminal cases against them. However, critics warn that it could be misused to remove individuals without a fair chance and it also takes away the power from voters as well as the elected leaders.
In other countries like the USA and UK, ministers are only removed after proper political processes or they being found guilty. This way, these countries try to keep a balance between holding leaders accountable and protecting their legal rights.
VI. CRITICAL RECEPTION AND SCHOLARLY OPINIONS
The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill has drawn a strong attention from the India’s legal, academic and political communities. While its key objective to address the growing criminalization of politics is widely regarded as both urgent and necessary, many have raised concerned that the Bill’s approach is too broad and open to misuse. Legal scholars like Professor Faizan Mustafa and senior advocate Indira Jaising pointed out that the Bill risks it confuses moral expectations with legal duties, risking violations of due process. The civil society groups such as the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) support stronger accountability but worry about the lack of clarity on which offences would lead to disqualification. Although, the critics also fear that the Bill may be used unfairly against the political opponents. In short, moreover the Bill has good intentions, but it could harm constitutional fairness unless it includes clear definitions, fair procedures as well as the
proper safeguards. 89
VII. CONCLUSION
The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, the aims to improve the governance by ensuring higher ethical standards for ministers and reducing the criminalization of politics in India. While the Bill seeks to uphold constitutional principles such as ministerial accountability and integrity, the Bill also raises concerns regarding vague terms and language, possible for political misuse and threats to due process. To enhance its effectiveness and fairness, it is essential to clearly define terms such as “ethical misconduct,” ensure disqualification occurs only after the conviction, provide for judicial review of the committee decisions and include time-bound reviews of its provisions. Additionally, the political parties should be encouraged to strengthen their internal accountability measures. It is essential that the constitutional reforms balance the goals of the ethical governance with legal protections to preserve the strength and the fairness of India’s democracy.
REFRENCES
1 Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, Text of the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill,
2025,
https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/bill_documents/Constitution_130th_Amendment_Bill_2025.p
df
2 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 (India).
https://www.scconline.com
3 Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501 (India).
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144413017/?utm
4 Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) 10 SCC 1 (India).
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163639357/?utm
5 The Article mention in the Constitution of India &
Constitution of India | Legislative Department | India
6 The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, Bill No. XX, Lok Sabha (India),
available at https://legislative.gov.in
7 Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 653 (India).
Lily Thomas vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2013
8 Faizan Mustafa, Constitutional Morality and Democratic Governance, 45 J. Indian L. 123, 130
(2024).
9 Indira Jaising, Ethics in Politics: The Indian Context, 22 Indian J. Const. L. 77, 85 (2023).
10 Association for Democratic Reforms, Criminalization of Politics in India: Report 2024,
https://adrindia.org/reports/criminalization-politics-india-report-2024
