Removal of Ministers Under Serious Charges

• 23 Aug 2025

For Prelims: Council of Ministers, Representation of the People Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 

For Mains: Governance and Accountability of Elected Representatives, Role of Parliament and Judiciary in Legislative Oversight

Source: IE 

Why in News? 

The Central Government has introduced the 130th Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha to remove central and state Ministers arrested for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. 

130^th Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025 

• Amendments: The Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, which deal with the Union Council of Ministers, Council of Ministers in the states, and Ministers in Union Territories respectively. 
• Key clause: A Minister(including the Chief Ministers & the Prime Minister) will also be included under the ambit of this law. arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days for offences punishable with five years or more must be removed by the President on the Prime Minister’s advice. 
  • Removal is reversible upon release from custody. 
• Objective: Uphold constitutional morality and good governance, ensuring ministers under serious allegations cannot continue in office and maintain public trust.

What is the Current Legal Framework for Removing Detained Ministers from Office? 

• There is no automatic removal of a Minister upon arrest. Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), legislators (including Ministers) are disqualified only after conviction for certain offences with imprisonment of two years or more. 
  • Under Section 8(1) of the RPA, 1951, a legislator convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is disqualified for six years if punished with a fine.  
    • If sentenced to imprisonment, disqualification lasts for the entire imprisonment period plus six years after release. 
  • Ministers are subject to the same qualifications as legislators, though their duties differ. 
• The presumption of innocence applies until conviction; mere arrest does not trigger removal.

Key Judicial Pronouncements Regarding Ministerial Accountability 

• Public Interest Foundation PIL (2018): The Supreme Court held it cannot legislate or add new grounds for disqualification beyond Parliament’s provisions. Parliament alone has the power to make laws on disqualification. 
  • SC recommended a strong law requiring political parties to revoke membership and deny tickets to those charged with heinous offences. 
• Manoj Narula v Union of India (2014): The Supreme Court ruled there is no legal bar on appointing Ministers with criminal antecedents but advised the Prime Minister to avoid selecting those charged with serious or heinous offences. 
• V Senthil Balaji Case: In 2025, the Supreme Court directed Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji to choose between freedom or office after noting it had been misled by his reappointment post-bail, which was granted in the alleged cash-for-jobs scam. 
  • He subsequently stepped down from office, and his bail continued. 
• Arvind Kejriwal Case (2024): The SC granted Arvind Kejriwal bail in the liquor policy money laundering case, barred him from official duties, could not compel resignation, but he later voluntarily resigned from office. 

Why is a New Provision Needed for the Removal of Detained Ministers? 

• Tackling Criminalisation of Politics: Many elected representatives have pending criminal cases. Current laws only disqualify them after conviction, allowing accused Ministers to continue in office for years, eroding public trust. 
  • The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) 2025 report on MLAs reveals that 45% of the legislators analyzed have declared criminal cases, with 29% facing serious charges such as murder, kidnapping, and crimes against women. 
• Strengthening Accountability of Ministers: Ministers hold executive power and can influence investigations.  
  • Judicial processes in India are slow. By the time a conviction is reached, Ministers may have served long terms while under investigation, defeating the purpose of accountability. 
  • A mechanism is needed to ensure that those detained for serious offences cannot continue in office unchecked. 
• Enhancing Public Confidence in Governance: Ensuring that Ministers facing serious charges are temporarily removed protects the integrity of government and reassures citizens about ethical governance.

What Measures are Needed for Strengthening Ministerial Accountability? 

• Strengthen Legal and Constitutional Provisions: Introduce clear rules for removal or suspension of Ministers facing serious criminal charges, even during investigation or detention. 
  • 170th Law Commission Report (1999) proposed disqualification of legislators when charges are framed for offences punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, for five years or until acquittal, whichever is earlier. 
    • The Election Commission (2004) and Law Commission’s 244th report (2014) supported this approach. 
  • 244th Law Commission Report (2014) proposed disqualification should occur when charges are framed by a court, indicating prima facie judicial satisfaction of sufficient material for trial. 
• Transparent Appointment Process: Ensure that political parties exercise due diligence when selecting Ministers, avoiding candidates with criminal antecedents. 
  • Implement guidelines for the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers to prioritize integrity in ministerial appointments. 
• Parliamentary Oversight: Strengthen the role of committees and ethics panels to monitor Ministers’ conduct. Mandate periodic disclosures of assets, liabilities, and pending cases to Parliament for scrutiny. 
• Ethical Governance and Codes of Conduct: Implement a binding ministerial code of conduct emphasizing transparency, integrity, and service to the public. 
  • Encourage political parties to adopt internal accountability mechanisms and enforce ethical standards.

Drishti Mains Question:

How can constitutional and legal measures strengthen ministerial accountability while balancing the presumption of innocence?

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQs) 

Mains 

Q. On what grounds a people’s representative can be disqualified under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951? Also mention the remedies available to such person against his disqualification  (2019) 

It is often said that ‘politics’ and ‘ethics’ do not go together. What is your opinion in this regard? Justify your answer with illustrations. (2013)

Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising out of the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What are the grounds on which the election of any returned candidate may be declared void? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision? Refer to the case laws. (2022)