Union Home Minister Amit Shah has strongly defended the Modi government’s decision to introduce constitutional amendment bills preventing leaders from holding top offices such as Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Union and State Ministers while in jail. In a lengthy post on X (formerly Twitter), Shah framed the reforms as a moral corrective against what he described as a decline in ethical standards in Indian politics.
What do the new constitutional amendment bills propose?
According to Amit Shah, the three bills are aimed at ensuring that individuals facing arrest or detention cannot continue running governments from behind bars. The proposals include:
- Prohibiting anyone under arrest from serving as Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister.
- Requiring accused politicians to secure bail within 30 days of arrest, failing which they would automatically lose their position.
- Allowing reinstatement once bail is granted through due legal process.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah argued that the framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated a future where leaders would refuse to resign even after arrest. He pointed to recent instances where jailed chief ministers continued to exercise power, calling the development “shocking and morally indefensible.”
How did Shah defend the Modi government’s move?
In his post, BJP MP Amit Shah positioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision as one of accountability, claiming the Prime Minister was voluntarily bringing himself and his office under the ambit of law.
The Union Home Minister also contrasted this with the Congress-led Opposition, which he accused of resisting reform in order to “cling to power” and shield leaders accused of corruption.
“Now the people of the country need to decide: Is it right for a minister, chief minister, or prime minister to run a government from jail?” Shah wrote.
What historical comparisons did Shah draw?
Amit Shah invoked the controversial 39th Constitutional Amendment, introduced under then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, which insulated the PM’s office from judicial scrutiny. He contrasted that with the BJP’s tradition of upholding accountability, citing examples such as LK Advani resigning from his post over mere allegations.
He also criticised Congress’s past attempts to protect leaders such as Lalu Prasad Yadav, recalling how a proposed ordinance to shield him was torn apart by Rahul Gandhi at the time, only for the same leader to share a stage with Yadav in Patna recently.
How did Shah respond to criticism from the Opposition?
Amit Shah said that when the Congress accused him of hypocrisy — pointing to his own arrest in a case years ago — he had resigned even before being taken into custody and did not hold office until being acquitted. The case, he added, was dismissed by the court as “politically motivated.”
The minister accused the Opposition alliance of acting “shamelessly” by blocking a proposal that had already been set for review by a Joint Parliamentary Committee, suggesting it exposed their “double standards” on corruption and accountability.
