Union Minister Kiren Rijiju recently revealed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi firmly rejected the idea of granting himself or his office any special protection in the newly introduced bills that mandate the automatic removal of ministers if they are held in custody for 30 consecutive days. Rijiju explained that during cabinet discussions, a recommendation was made to exclude the Prime Minister from the ambit of this law, but Modi dismissed the suggestion, stating that he too is a citizen and should not be treated differently. According to Rijiju, Modi was clear that the law must apply equally to every leader, regardless of position or party affiliation.
Rijiju highlighted that the principle of equality before the law was at the heart of the Prime Minister’s decision. He stressed that leaders, whether chief ministers or cabinet ministers, should not be allowed to continue in office if they face such serious legal circumstances. He noted that most chief ministers in the country belong to the BJP itself, and even they would not be shielded from the consequences if they were found guilty of misconduct. Rijiju underlined that ethics in politics must be taken seriously, and argued that the Opposition would have embraced the reform had it prioritised ethical standards over political interests.
The Union Minister also came to the defence of the government amid the uproar that followed the introduction of the bills in Parliament. He accused Opposition parties, particularly the Trinamool Congress (TMC), of deliberately disrupting proceedings. Rijiju alleged that despite prior agreements to maintain order, TMC MPs stormed the well of the House, threw papers, and created chaos. He further claimed that Congress leaders followed suit under pressure from their party leadership. According to him, such actions reflected a calculated strategy by the Opposition to derail important discussions.
The chaos in Parliament occurred when Union Home Minister Amit Shah tabled three draft legislations: the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, and the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill. These proposals included provisions stating that if the Prime Minister, a chief minister, or any minister is detained for 30 days on charges carrying a minimum sentence of five years, they would automatically lose their position on the 31st day. However, the law would allow them to be reinstated if acquitted or released from custody.
Amit Shah defended the reforms as a landmark step against corruption. He argued that it would be unethical and unacceptable for leaders to hold constitutional office while facing serious criminal charges. Shah stated that the government was determined to ensure accountability and integrity in public life, describing the bills as a measure to restore trust between citizens and political leadership. The BJP positioned the move as a bold and necessary reform to cleanse politics of corruption and misuse of power.
The Opposition, however, raised sharp objections. Opposition parties condemned the bills as unconstitutional and authoritarian, warning that the provisions could be exploited by central agencies to destabilise non-BJP governments. They cautioned that the detention of political leaders under investigation could become a political weapon, leading to the misuse of power against dissenting parties. The strong pushback from the Opposition, including torn copies of the bills and protests inside the Lok Sabha, underscored the political tensions surrounding the proposed changes.
Amid the uproar, the draft legislation has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed examination. This indicates that while the government is keen to push the reform forward, further scrutiny and debate will shape the final outcome. The bills have sparked one of the most heated debates in recent parliamentary sessions, bringing to the forefront questions of ethics, accountability, and the balance of power between ruling and opposition parties.
