All-Out Authoritarianism
M A Baby
ON August 20, 2025, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, was introduced in the Lok Sabha. Similar amendments have been proposed to the laws that govern the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Puducherry as well. Following their introduction, the bills were referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for scrutiny.
Being constitution amendment bills, they would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Parliament for their passage. However, it is very clear that the BJP nor the NDA have the required numbers at present. For the current Lok Sabha, two-thirds majority typically means needing at least 362 votes out of a full house of 543 MPs. The BJP, along with its allies in the NDA, currently has about 293 MPs in the Lok Sabha—far short of what would be required to ensure the passage of the proposed constitutional amendments. Yet, they have moved these bills!
When the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill – which seeks to implement BJP’s much touted ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) slogan – was introduced in the Lok Sabha, it was pointed out by many that the ruling alliance did not have the required numbers. The bills were formally introduced in the Parliament by a simple majority, as required by the rules. 263 MPs voted in favour and 198 opposed it. However, if that were a vote to pass the bill, 307 of those 461 would have had to vote in favour of it, to meet the stipulation of two-thirds majority required for a constitution amendment bill.
Though the 130th amendment has been introduced in the name of ‘public interest, welfare, and good governance’, it is in reality, a draconian legislation designed to destabilise opposition-led state governments and undermine India’s federal structure. In an era marked by vindictive politics, its provisions have been catered to enable misuse for ulterior motives. The bill’s reference to ‘constitutional morality’ contradicts its spirit, as it deviates from the established principle that disqualification and punishment should be tied to convictions by courts, not merely charges or arrests. This principle is clearly enshrined in Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951. In today’s pernicious political climate, where individuals can be easily charged, arrested, and detained for extended periods, this legislation will surely be weaponised to target political opponents and erode democratic norms.
Articles 75, 164 & 239AA of the Indian Constitution detail procedures and prerequisites for ministerial appointment and removal, expressly vesting such power in ‘the President on the advice of the Prime Minister’ and ‘the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister’. The proposed amendment breaches this constitutional intent. Articles 14, 19 & 21 enshrine equality before law, freedom of speech, due process, and personal liberty. Automatic removal on unproven criminal charge contravenes these guarantees. It reverses the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. There isn’t even a sunset or review clause. Once removed, the minister cannot automatically return even if acquitted or if bail is granted after the 30 day period. There is no provision for compensation if the arrest is found to be malicious either. In fact, this will only encourage the misuse of preventive detention and laws like the UAPA.
As far as central agencies go, the Enforcement Directorate is the favourite lapdog of the current ruling dispensation. However, the ED has a dismal track record. Only 38 out of the more than 5,000 cases filed by them in the last few years have resulted in convictions. This extremely low conviction rate, also exposes the fact that most cases never even reach the trial stage. 95 per cent of ED cases between 2014 and 2022 were against opposition politicians. Under PMLA, bail remains rare, particularly because of the twin conditions to be met under Section 45. There are also reports which confirm the agencies’ practice of re-arresting accused after 29 days to restart the judicial custody clock, subverting default bail rules and prolonging detention without charge. Such excesses are only going to get accentuated if this bill becomes law!
Four serious objections ought to be raised against this bill. One, it is violative of the presumption of innocence. It punishes ministers on mere arrest, not conviction, subverting the constitutional guarantee of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and creating an executive tool for vendetta. Two, it breaches the separation of powers. Automatic removal bypasses parliamentary and judicial oversight, concentrating unchecked power in the executive and contravening basic constitutional checks and balances. Three, due process is denied. Removal without trial, charge framing, or judicial finding violates due process. Four, it creates a platform for political misuse. Under the current well established pattern of central agencies targeting opposition leaders, the bill risks constitutionalising vendetta instead of promoting clean governance.
This bill is an unprecedented attack on India’s constitutional architecture. Not merely those in the opposition, but even those who are in favour of the Sangh Parivar’s larger agenda for a majoritarian country, are also questioning it. Many are drawing parallels between the laws of Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Modi’s Hindutva India. Read together with the ONOE push, the proposed constitutional amendment points to the heralding in of a Presidential system of governance, which is anyway preferred to a Parliamentary Democracy, by the Hindutva brigade. Democracy is anyway an anathema to them, as they like to rule over their subjects rather than govern the nation’s citizens who are their equals.
This is a clear manifestation of the Modi government’s authoritarian drive to suppress the opposition and our democracy, which displays their neo-fascist characteristics. By enabling automatic removal of a prime minister, chief minister, or minister on mere arrest and pre-trial custodial detention, it eviscerates the presumption of innocence and due process, both cornerstones of a meaningful system of law and justice. It vests arbitrary power in central agencies opening the floodgates to constitutionalised vendetta against opposition leaders. The pattern of weaponising prosecution is already underway and it cannot be allowed to have constitutional sanctity.
Neither in the Lok Sabha, nor in the Rajya Sabha does the BJP even enjoy a simple majority. Their numbers in both houses are 240 and 102 respectively, well below the half way mark. They are absolutely reliant on their alliance partners – TDP, JD(U), LJP, SS, NCP, RLD etc – to pass even routine bills. Ironically, TDP leader N Chandrababu Naidu had spent 52 days in custody while he was in the opposition in Andhra Pradesh, in connection with a skill development project scam that allegedly took place when he was chief minister between 2014 and 2019.
Though numerically much smaller than the BJP, the support of political parties like the TDP and leaders like N Chandrababu Naidu, or lack thereof, makes or breaks the NDA. Under such circumstances, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, is a veiled threat to them too, so that they do not become adventurous enough to put up any hurdles in the Hindutva project. The proposed bills are clearly warnings to those within their ranks to dare not rebel and to those opposed to them that they will be hounded down.
The fact that the current ruling dispensation is relentless in its efforts to re-write the Indian Constitution, despite falling well short of the numbers required to do so, point to their unmistakable authoritarian tendency. Central investigative agencies are already being unleashed on opposition parties and leaders, with false cases being foisted upon them. The proposed constitutional amendments are but merely measures to give such crooked moves constitutional validity. This has to be resisted tooth and nail.
