Shashi Tharoor Supports Bill to Remove Jailed Ministers, Differs from Congress Line

New Delhi Chronicle Staff Reporter

New Delhi, August 20, 2025 – Senior Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has once again struck a different note from his party, voicing support for a set of constitutional amendment bills tabled in Parliament. The legislation, introduced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, proposes that the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Chief Ministers, and State Ministers must vacate office if they remain in jail for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges.

While the Congress has strongly opposed the proposal, Tharoor called it “reasonable.” He added that the idea makes sense as those in high office should step down if accused of grave offences, though he admitted he has not yet studied the bill in detail.

Key Features of the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025
• Ministers, including the PM and CMs, must resign if jailed for 30 days or more for crimes carrying a minimum five-year sentence.
• If they fail to step down by the 31st day, they will be automatically removed from their post.
• Once released, they can be considered for reappointment.
• The bill has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further scrutiny.

Opposition Pushback: “Draconian and Unconstitutional”

Congress leaders have strongly rejected the bill, warning it could be used for political vendetta. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra labeled it “draconian,” cautioning that a government could misuse law enforcement agencies to detain Chief Ministers and remove them from office without conviction.

KC Venugopal argued that the ruling party is attempting to divert public attention from pressing issues like electoral malpractice. Meanwhile, senior leader Pramod Tiwari said the Congress will study the details before issuing a formal response.

Why This Matters

This legislation could significantly alter India’s political landscape by raising accountability standards for public officials. However, critics say it risks being weaponized against the Opposition, making the debate a critical test for democratic checks and balances.