Senior lawyers have raised concern over the misuse of the three contentious bills tabled in Parliament on Wednesday.
Senior advocate and activist Indira Jaising said she was opposed to the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill as a whole. The bill seeks to remove a Prime Minister, chief minister or any other minister in jail for 30 days, without conviction.
“In a country where criminal law is used for persecution, not prosecution, and as a tool for eliminating all Opposition parties, the proposed constitutional amendment is also weaponising the Constitution itself. When the ED and the CBI are under the direct control of the central government, federalism gets destroyed. Law and order as a state subject is taken out of the State List and given to the Centre,” Jaising said.
She added: “You can move to one-party rule as the ministers of the ruling party will be the only ones left standing; all others will be behind bars. But lest they claim the moral high ground, let me say, I too oppose corruption in high places, but the way to deal with it is to honestly prosecute, not disqualify from public office.”
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde told The Telegraph: “The disqualification is temporary and to the extent until which the person is in jail. One can resume office after release…”
Hegde added: “A constitutional amendment can only be struck down if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. Which part of the basic structure says that someone can continue being a minister while in prison?”
“However, there is a great possibility of misuse. I foresee strong governments in the Centre misusing it against strong governments in the states. If a strong CM is against you, you can go for him close to the elections, remove him as CM, and get his supporters to walk over.”
“It can also be used against the national ruling party’s own CMs who emerge as challengers, or against allies. Chandrababu Naidu was in jail before he became CM,” Hegde added.
Advocate and constitutional law scholar Gautam Bhatia posted on X: “Bewildered why people reporting on the three new bills are mostly omitting the rather important fact that they need 2/3 majorities in both Houses to pass — which is impossible unless the Opposition votes for them en masse.”
Senior advocate and DMK Rajya Sabha member P. Wilson wrote on X that “the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill moved by home minister Amit Shah is clearly part of a diabolical plan to turn India into a dictatorship”.
“These moves mirror the moves made by Adolf Hitler in Germany. Remember, he too seized power and destroyed Germany’s Constitution by enacting a law — the Enabling Act of 1933,” Wilson wrote.
He said mere registration of a case and arrest by central agencies acting under the dictates of the Union government does not render a person “guilty”.
“Out of 193 cases registered by the ED against political rivals of the BJP, only two have ended in conviction, proving that 191 cases are false and foisted for political reasons. See the classic example of Shri Satyendra Jain of AAP — after much ado, the CBI itself has filed a closure report in a case against him, after arresting him and unleashing the ED,” Wilson said.
He argued: “For the PM to be arrested, the sanction has to be given by the President (on the advice of the Union cabinet headed by the Prime Minister). For a CM or state minister, though the sanction has to be given by the governor acting under the aid and advice of the state cabinet, we have seen many BJP-appointed governors acting against the state cabinet’s advice and following the diktat of the Union government.
“So, the ‘sketch’ is obvious for everyone to see — whenever a strong regional leader opposes the PM, foist a false case, arrest them with ED or CBI and remove them as CM or minister.”