The controversial proposal by the BJP-led Central government to automatically remove the Prime Minister, chief ministers and ministers from their posts if they remain in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days, coupled with the simmering row over Defense Minister Rajnath Singh’s remarks on Operation Sindur, is set to dominate the monsoon session of Parliament beginning on July 20.
The government announced on Saturday that the session will continue until August 13. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said President Draupadi Murmu agreed to summon the two chambers from July 20 “to hold meaningful debate, discussion and take decisions on issues of national importance.”
The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill 2025 is expected to be in the spotlight, after a joint parliamentary committee examining the legislation is scheduled to meet on July 17 to adopt its report, news agency ANI reported on Saturday.
The Joint Election Commission is unlikely to recommend dropping the controversial provision in the bill, which provides for automatic removal of the prime minister, chief ministers and union or state ministers if they are arrested and remain in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days in cases involving serious offences.
However, the report is expected to recommend safeguards to prevent misuse through politically motivated prosecutions or vendettas, news agency ANI reported, citing unnamed sources but who did not provide further details.
The proposed constitutional amendment has emerged as one of the government’s most controversial legislative initiatives since its introduction last year.
In addition, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government was unable to make constitutional amendments in the last session because it does not have the necessary parliamentary numbers to do so. The defections have changed the calculations little since then; More on that later. First, Amendment Bill No. 130.
Why is the PM-CM Removal Bill so controversial?
Supporters say a measure that allows leaders to be removed based solely on imprisonment on allegations would enhance accountability in public office. However, critics assert that it fundamentally changes the constitutional framework. Alternatively, there could be faster decisions from the court, they claimed.
- Abuse of fear: Opposition parties have repeatedly said the proposal undermines the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and could allow governments to be destabilized through politically motivated investigations or arrests.
- The Modi regime’s argument: The government emphasized that the goal is to ensure higher levels of public accountability for those who hold the highest executive positions in the country.
Constitutional obstacle
Even if the Joint Parliamentary Committee submits its report before Parliament reconvenes, the legislation faces a much higher threshold than a regular draft law.
Because it seeks to amend the Constitution, the bill has to be passed separately by both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha by a special majority under Article 368 of the Constitution.
This requires the support of a majority of the total members of each chamber and at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. Since the amendment directly affects the constitutional provisions governing executive offices, it is also expected to require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures before it can receive presidential approval and take effect.
These calculations are of central importance in the political debate surrounding the draft law.
It is clear that the BJP has been improving its effective strength in both houses through electoral gains, defections, and support from regional non-aligned parties.
It seeks to strengthen other constitutional measures as well, including legislation related to delimitation and implementation of reservation for women. This is the 131st proposed amendment that failed the parliamentary test in April, confirming that neither the BJP nor the NDA have the numbers to make sweeping changes yet.
The fate of the 130th Amendment Bill – relating to provisions for the dismissal of the Prime Minister, Prime Ministers and Ministers – is therefore seen as an important test of the government’s ability to build consensus on constitutional changes.
Franchise dispute over Rajnath Singh
The Opposition is also expected to aggressively pursue abuse of privilege action against Defense Minister Rajnath Singh over his remarks during the Parliament debate on Operation Sindoor last year.
The Congress, buoyed by recent displays of unity in the India bloc, has accused Rajnath Singh of misleading the Lok Sabha when he said that no Indian soldier was martyred during Operation Sindoor. The opposition, led by Rahul Gandhi, claimed that the government’s subsequent official acknowledgment of military losses contradicted this assertion.
Congress general secretary KC Venugopal filed a breach of privilege notice against the minister, alleging that he had told an “outright and blatant lie” before Parliament.
The BJP and the government argued that Rajnath Singh’s remarks were quoted selectively and out of context. They emphasized that the veteran leader was referring to a specific phase of the operation and did not deny that Indian Army personnel lost their lives during the broader course of hostilities.
Whether the concession notice is accepted will ultimately depend on the decision of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, who will also take some key decisions on the recent defections in the BJP-led NDA from the Trinamool Congress in Bengal and the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra (UBT).
Where mathematics stands now
The improvement in the numbers of NDA Party members strengthened its grip, especially in the Rajya Sabha, although this improvement does not guarantee the passage of the constitutional amendment.
Political estimates after the recent Rajya Sabha elections, defections and resignations put the ruling alliance at around 151 members, with it potentially rising to 154 members after by-elections to seats vacated by rebel Trinamool Congress MPs. In the current 245-member chamber, a constitutional amendment typically requires the support of at least 163 members, assuming full attendance. This would leave the NDA about nine votes short.
However, the required limit can change depending on attendance. Under Article 368, amending the Constitution must, as a first step, secure the support of a majority of the total members of both Houses. In addition, it must be approved by two-thirds of the members present and voting.
This means that the abstention of opposition representatives from voting may reduce the second demand. For example, if only 225 members vote in the Rajya Sabha, the two-thirds mark falls to 150.
In Lok Sabha too, absence can result in a two-thirds reduction in the threshold. However, this remains the most difficult hurdle.
The current effective strength of the Lok Sabha is 540 votes due to three vacancies, and it would require 360 votes to amend the Constitution if all members vote. With the actual support enjoyed by the Rally, which is estimated at about 320 deputies after the recent defections, the ruling coalition is still about 40 votes short of the number required if there was a full attendance.
However, the threshold drops if opposition MPs abstain – for example, to 334 if only 500 members vote, and 300 if 450 members vote.
This means that a BJP-led alliance will require support from more regional parties, cross-voting, or an opposition abstention.
(with ANI inputs)
