With just over two weeks remaining before the Winter Session of Parliament, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has approved the formation of a 31-member Joint Committee of Parliament. This committee’s mandate is to scrutinize several bills aimed at introducing a provision for the removal of ministers—from chief ministers at the state level to the Prime Minister—if they spend 30 consecutive days in jail under serious criminal charges. The announcement comes amid significant political controversy, with the Opposition choosing to boycott the panel, leaving the ruling BJP and its allies holding an overwhelming majority.
### Composition of the Joint Committee and Political Dynamics
The Joint Committee is dominated by members from the BJP and its National Democratic Alliance (NDA) partners, who occupy 26 of the 31 seats. The few non-NDA members include Supriya Sule of the NCP (which is part of the Opposition INDIA bloc), AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, Harsimrat Kaur Badal from the Shiromani Akali Dal, and Sudha Murty, a nominated member of the Rajya Sabha. Aparajita Sarangi, a BJP MP from the Lok Sabha, has been appointed as the chairperson of this committee.
The NCP’s Supriya Sule has explained her party’s decision to participate despite being part of the Opposition front, stating that it presented an opportunity to voice the party’s perspectives on the bills. However, she also emphasized the lack of coordination with the Congress party, adding that “the Congress hasn’t contacted us and there has been no discussion on whether to be a part of the committee or not.” Most other Opposition parties have chosen to boycott the committee, citing concerns over its composition and the potential misuse of the proposed legislation.
### Bills Under Examination
The Joint Committee is tasked with examining three key bills introduced during the Monsoon Session of Parliament. These are:
1. The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill 2. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill 3. The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill
These bills collectively seek to amend provisions related to the disqualification or removal of ministers if they are detained for extended periods under serious criminal charges. Specifically, the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill proposes an amendment to Article 75 of the Indian Constitution, which governs the appointment and functioning of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister.
### Core Provision of the Proposed Amendment
According to the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, any minister who is arrested and detained for a continuous period of 30 days on charges involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more shall be removed from office. The removal would be carried out by the President of India, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, and must occur by the 31st day of detention.
This provision is intended to ensure that ministers facing serious criminal allegations do not continue to hold office while incarcerated for extended periods. Proponents argue that this will uphold the integrity of governance and prevent individuals accused of grave crimes from wielding ministerial power.
### Opposition Concerns and Political Resistance
The Opposition has strongly opposed these bills, expressing deep apprehensions about their potential misuse. They argue that the legislation could be weaponized by the BJP-led central government to destabilize and intimidate governments in states ruled by non-NDA parties. Opposition leaders have cited recent examples, such as the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and the resignation of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) chief Hemant Soren ahead of a possible arrest, as evidence of the possible political motivations behind the legislation.
Many in the Opposition view the bills as an attempt to undermine federalism and the autonomy of state governments by enabling the central government to target political opponents under the guise of criminal prosecution. Consequently, most Opposition parties have decided to boycott the Joint Committee, refusing to lend legitimacy to a process they see as biased and one-sided.
Within the Opposition itself, there were differing opinions. Some factions within the Congress and the Left expressed a willingness to participate in the committee to represent their viewpoint and influence the deliberations constructively. However, ultimately, the broader INDIA bloc decided to maintain a united front by abstaining from the panel.
### Expert Commentary on the Committee’s Credibility
The absence of key Opposition parties from the Joint Committee has drawn criticism from constitutional experts and former parliamentary officials. P. D.