Draconian, unconstitutional: Oppn slams Modi govt over new Constitution amendment Bill

The Opposition, led by the Congress, has mounted a blistering attack on the Modi government over the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, calling it “draconian, diversionary and unconstitutional”.

The Bill, tabled by home minister Amit Shah, proposes that the prime minister or any union or state minister facing corruption or other serious criminal charges can be removed from office if they are arrested or detained for more than 30 days — a provision the Opposition says grants sweeping powers to the Centre to destabilise opposition-led governments.

Congress general secretary (organisation) K.C. Venugopal accused Shah of hypocrisy: “BJP leaders claim this Bill will bring morality into politics. I want to ask the home minister: When he was facing arrest as Gujarat’s home minister, did he resign on moral grounds? This Bill is clearly designed to target Opposition-ruled states.”

Shah, for his part, claimed he had stepped down before his arrest on ethical grounds — and did not return until his name was cleared. However, he had in fact been accused when he resigned — and was only not yet under arrest when then-chief minister Narendra Modi announced his resignation (and declared his innocence) because he was, in fact, absconding. (Sources had claimed at the time that he did not 'trust' the CBI and had therefore gone udnerground.)

Echoing Venugopal, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra too slammed the Centre’s proposal as “completely draconian”.

“To say it is an anti-corruption measure is just to pull a veil across the eyes of the people. Tomorrow, you can put any kind of a case on a chief minister, have him arrested for 30 days without conviction, and he ceases to be a chief minister.

"It is absolutely wrong, anti-constitutional, undemocratic and very unfortunate,” she said.

Congress MP Manish Tewari warned that the legislation “opens the door to political misuse by state agencies whose arbitrary conduct has repeatedly been flagged by the Supreme Court”, and added that it “tears apart existing constitutional safeguards”.

The Trinamool Congress’ Mahua Moitra went further, describing the move as a “super-Emergency” — a sentiment echoed by West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee in a post online and also by fellow Trinamool legislator Sagarika Ghose.

“This bypasses the judiciary — no trial, no conviction, yet ministers can be sacked. It is extremely dangerous. The BJP wants power without accountability,” Moitra said, arguing that weaponised agencies like the ED and CBI could be deployed to topple elected governments under this law.

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi said the Bill violated “federalism, due process, separation of powers and the people’s right to an elected government.” He also signalled opposition to two related constitutional amendments.

Outside Parliament, seasoned journalist and political observers also raised red flags.

Veteran journalist Sheela Bhatt questioned both the timing and intent: “Why introduce such a provocative amendment now? Perhaps it is symbolic — to project toughness on corruption, even covering the Prime Minister’s office. But disqualifying chief ministers after 30 days in custody is a radical step that could spark a backlash stronger than the farm bills.”

Wire journalist M.K. Venu described the Bill as a political smokescreen.
“This is just a ploy to distract from 'Vote Chori' and the Bihar SIR scam. It’s the standard playbook of a regime when cornered. Expect more such distractions in the weeks ahead,” he wrote.

With the government needing a two-thirds majority in both Houses to pass the Bill, the battle over the amendment will be fierce. Political analysts, however, believe that the NDA government does not in fact have the numbers in either House to push through a Constitutional Amendment Bill easily.

“Forget the Rajya Sabha, the Modi government doesn’t even command a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha. The Bill — as an attempt to target Opposition governments and override the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 — appears more like a political pipe dream than a realistic possibility at this stage," said a political commentator.