The joint committee reviewing a constitutional amendment bill to remove suspended ministers is set to recommend a sunset clause – an automatic revocation clause – in the bill to allow ministers to be reappointed in the event of failure to proceed with prosecution within a specified period, people familiar with the details said.
The provision could serve as a safeguard in controversial legislation, the people, who requested anonymity, added. The committee, led by BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi, is likely to make at least five key recommendations to the government.
What is the return condition?
One is the automatic revocation clause, the purpose of which the people cited above have said is to ensure that a minister’s dismissal ends when he is discharged, acquitted or the prosecution fails to proceed within a specified period.
This clause will ensure that removal based on an unproven allegation does not become a de facto permanent disability.
Read also: Maha extends her support for the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 130
In other words, if a minister is removed from office after his arrest but is later acquitted by a court, that person is eligible for reappointment and does not lose his position permanently.
On the agenda of the seasonal session
Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill and two supplementary legislations for Jammu and Kashmir and other union territories in August last year. The opposition objected to the bill and several parties refused to be part of the joint committee to review the bill as a sign of protest.
The government has indicated that the legislation is high on its agenda during the upcoming monsoon period.
The Committee may recommend to the Government to define the term “serious criminal offences” and maintain consistency in the provision for speedy courts/special courts to try cases against senior constitutional officials.
In a second change, the committee may ask the government to include a separate “schedule of crimes” punishable by imprisonment for five years or more, in the three draft laws.
The third change that the committee is considering is replacing the terms “removal” and “cessation of serving as a minister” with the word “suspension.”
The Committee may recommend to the Government to define the term “serious criminal offences” and maintain consistency in the provision for speedy courts/special courts to try cases against senior constitutional officials.
Defending the bills before the committee, the Union Home Ministry said the legislative measure “addresses a critical gap in the existing constitutional and legal frameworks with regard to the accountability of holders of senior public office specifically, the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Ministers.”
The Ministry stressed that the proposed amendments coincide with the commitment to strengthening constitutional ethics, moral judgment, and public confidence in democratic institutions.
Bill Objects Oppn
Many opposition members questioned the intention of the government and said that under the stringent Money Laundering Prevention Act or Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the chances of getting bail are almost non-existent and the proposed law could be misused to remove elected ministers and destabilize non-NDA governments.
However, the ministry said that Article 187 of the BNSS allows judicial detention initially for up to 15 days in police custody – wholly or partially during the first 40 or 60 days – depending on the seriousness of the crime, and extends judicial detention up to a total of 60 days (investigations into crimes punishable by less than 10 years’ imprisonment) or 90 days (investigations into crimes punishable by more than 10 years’ imprisonment).
When asked by members why the Bill added a five-year imprisonment requirement, the Home Ministry asserted that the First Schedule of the BNSS, 2023, contains a classification of offenses in relation to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS, 2023) and offenses against other laws. In the classification of offences, most offenses punishable by imprisonment of less than three years or by fine only are classified as non-cognizable and bailable offenses which can be tried by any judge. Most offenses punishable by imprisonment of three years and above but not more than seven years are classified as cognizable and non-bailable offenses and must be tried by a first-class judge.
In an earlier meeting, Opposition members had questioned the government’s intention and said the new law could remove the chief ministers of Karnataka, Jharkhand and Telangana – all of whom have cases pending against them.
