The BJP-led central government’s controversial proposal to automatically remove the prime minister, chief ministers and ministers from office if they remain in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days, along with a brewing row over defence minister Rajnath Singh’s remarks on Operation Sindoor, is set to dominate the Monsoon Session of Parliament beginning July 20.
The government on Saturday announced that the session will run until August 13. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju said President Droupadi Murmu had approved summoning both Houses from July 20 “for meaningful debate, discussion and decisions on issues of national importance”.
The spotlight is expected to fall on the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, after a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the legislation is scheduled to meet on July 17 to adopt its report, news agency ANI reported on Saturday.
The JPC is unlikely to recommend dropping the bill’s contentious provision, which mandates the automatic removal of the PM, CMs and Union or state ministers if they are arrested and remain in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days in cases involving serious offences.
The report, however, is expected to recommend safeguards to prevent misuse through politically motivated prosecutions or vendetta, ANI reported citing unnamed sources but did not report further details.
The proposed constitutional amendment has emerged as one of the government’s most debated legislative initiatives since it was introduced last year.
Plus, PM Narendra Modi’s government could not make constitutional amendments in the last session as it does not have the Parliamentary numbers for that. Defections have changed the math a bit since; more on that later. First, the 130th Amendment Bill.
Why PM-CM removal bill is contentious
Supporters argue the measure to allow for removal of leaders, based on mere jailing on allegations, would enhance accountability in public office. Critics, however, contend that it fundamentally alters the constitutional framework. Rather, there could be faster court decisions, they have argued.
- Misuse fear: Opposition parties have repeatedly said the proposal undermines the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and could allow governments to be destabilised through politically motivated investigations or arrests.
- Modi regime’s argument: The government has maintained that the objective is to ensure higher standards of public accountability for those occupying the country’s highest executive offices.
Constitutional hurdle
Even if the JPC submits its report before Parliament reconvenes, the legislation faces a substantially higher threshold than an ordinary bill.
Because it seeks to amend the Constitution, the bill must be passed separately by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha by a “special majority” under Article 368 of the Constitution.
That requires support of a majority of the total membership of each House and at least two-thirds of members present and voting. Since the amendment directly affects 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 assent and come into force.
This arithmetic is central to the political debate surrounding the Bill.
The BJP has evidently been working to improve its effective strength in both Houses through electoral gains, defections and support from non-aligned regional parties.
It has been seeking to advance other constitutional measures too, including legislation linked to delimitation and the implementation of women’s reservation. That’s the proposed 131st amendment which failed the Parliament test in April, underlining that the BJP or NDA does not have the numbers for sweeping changes, yet.
The fate of the 130th Amendment Bill — on removal provisions for PM, CMs and ministers — is therefore being viewed as an important test of the government’s ability to build consensus for constitutional changes.
Privilege row over Rajnath Singh
The Opposition is also expected to aggressively pursue breach-of-privilege proceedings against defence minister Rajnath Singh over his statements during Parliament’s discussion on Operation Sindoor last year.
The Congress, buoyed by recent shows of unity in the INDIA bloc, has accused Rajnath Singh of misleading the Lok Sabha by stating that no Indian soldier was martyred during Operation Sindoor. The Rahul Gandhi-led Opposition argued that the government’s subsequent official acknowledgement of military casualties contradicts that assertion.
Congress general secretary KC Venugopal has moved a breach-of-privilege notice against the minister, alleging he made a “straightforward, clear-cut lie” before Parliament.
The BJP and the government have argued that Rajnath Singh’s remarks are being quoted selectively and out of context. They have maintained that the veteran leader was referring to a specific phase of the operation and not denying that Indian military personnel lost their lives during the broader course of hostilities.
Whether the privilege notice is admitted will ultimately depend on the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, who is also to take some key decision on recent defections to the BJP-led NDA from Bengal’s Trinamool Congress and Maharashtra’s Shiv Sena (UBT).
Where math stands now
The NDA’s improved numbers have strengthened its hand particularly in the Rajya Sabha, though they do not guarantee passage of a constitutional amendment.
Political estimates after the latest Rajya Sabha elections, defections and resignations put the ruling alliance at around 151 members, with the possibility of rising to 154 after bypolls to seats vacated by rebel Trinamool Congress MPs. In the current House of 245, a constitutional amendment ordinarily requires the support of at least 163 members, assuming full attendance. That would still leave the NDA roughly nine votes short.
However, the required threshold can change depending on attendance. Under Article 368, a Constitution amendment must, as first step, secure the support of a majority of the total membership of each House. Plus, it must be approved by two-thirds of members present and voting.
This means abstentions by Opposition MPs could reduce the second requirement. For example, if only 225 members vote in the Rajya Sabha, the two-thirds mark falls to 150.
In the Lok Sabha, too, absences can reduce the two-thirds threshold. That remains the tougher hurdle, though.
The current effective Lok Sabha strength is 540 owing to three vacancies, and a Constitution amendment would require 360 votes if all members vote. With the NDA’s effective support estimated at about 320 MPs after recent defections, the ruling alliance still falls about 40 votes short of the mark if there is full attendance.
However, the threshold falls if Opposition MPs abstain — for instance, to 334 if only 500 members vote, and 300 if 450 members vote.
That means the BJP-led alliance would require support from more regional parties, cross-voting, or substantial Opposition abstentions.
(with ANI inputs)
Discover more from News Link360
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
