New bills for PM, CM's removal will ensure morality, probity, says BJP

THe Bharatiya Janata company on wed said the 3 bills moved by unification place minister Amit Shah in the Lok Sabha that seek the removal of the Prime Minister or chief ministers facing corruption or serious offences if they remain in detention for 30 consecutive days, are intended at ensuring “morality and probity” in public life.The party also underlined how its own leaders, from LK Advani to Amit Shah, had stepped down from their positions when they faced allegations of “corruption and other charges.”“When the bill was first drafted the PM’s office was kept out of the ambit, but PM Modi insisted that the bill should include the head of the union government as well. Where is the question of any political witch hunt?The provisions of the bills are in line with the anti corruption agenda and will apply to all equally,” said a senior party leader, speaking on condition of anonymity.ALSO READ | What happens now to PM, CM removal bills? Committee to review proposed laws after Oppn spat with Amit ShahA second party functionary said that the Congress and other opposition parties should “clearly state the reasons for their opposition to the bill…and whether they support a government being run from behind the bars,”While the opposition joined forces to criticise the bills, dubbing them as undemocratic and against the tenets of federalism -- they see this as a way for the BJP to topple state governments -- the BJP asserted that the move was line with the government’s anti corruption agenda and not intended as a tool for vendetta.Amid disruption and protest by the opposition, Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025. The bill seeks to remove the Prime Minister or chief ministers facing corruption or serious offence charges if they remain in detention for 30 consecutive days.He also introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025; since there is no provision under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019) for such a measure, Section 54 of the Act, needs to be amended to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Chief Minister or a minister in these cases.ALSO READ | Prashant Kishor backs NDA bills on PM, CM removal: ‘Constitution makers may not have imagined…'And he introduced the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which extends the same law to UTs.Senior BJP leaders explained that the bills which have been referred to a joint parliamentary committee that will present its report on the first day of the next session will ensure there is no recurrence of events where a minister or a CM, refused to step down even as charges were framed against them.A third senior party leader, cited the example of former Delhi CM and Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal who was in prison for nearly six months in 2024 in the corruption case lodged by the CBI in connection with the excise policy ‘scam’, as an example of impropriety.“There was this case of a sitting CM who was in jail and on August 15, another leader had to step in to unfurl the National Flag… it was against public morality,” added the third leader.On the timing of the Bill, the second leader said the government had thought of bringing the bill soon after Kejriwal’s arrest, but decided against it, because it did not want the opposition to paint it as “a political move to remove Kejriwal”. “It was about the system and not the individual…” the leader said.He said there have been numerous instances where leaders who were accused of graft and other irregularities had stepped down pending a probe. “When the Hawala Diaries were made public and LK Advani’s name was mentioned, he stepped down as the party president and resigned from his Lok Sabha membership… Shah himself stepped down as minister in Gujarat and more recently Jharkhand CM, Hemant Soren stepped down as CM when he was arrested, and much earlier Lalu Prasad Yadav had to step down as Bihar CM when he was accused of the fodder scam,” the leader said.ALSO READ | Why bills on PM, CM removal are being opposed: ‘Can be sacked on mere allegations’In 2024, Soren stepped down as CM following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an alleged money laundering case.He went on to say that Shah did not accept any constitutional position till he was acquitted by the court in 2015. “He could have become union minister or a Rajya Sabha member in 2014 itself, but he chose not to. He became the minister in 2017…”Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Shah referred to his own decision to step down as the home minister of Gujarat till he was cleared of all charges by the courts“False allegations were levelled against me, and I resigned on moral grounds, and I did not take any constitutional posts until I was cleared of all charges by the courts,” Shah said.The BJP also stepped up its attack on the Congress, pointing out that the party, when it was in power, had attempted to amend the Office of Profit bill to seek exemption for the post of NAC chairperson Sonia Gandhi and several other posts from its ambit.“When Sonia Gandhi had to resign for holding an office of profit the party tried to amend the provisions. Instead of leading by example and walking the talk on probity and public morality they chose to alter the rules,” the first leader quoted above said.In 2006, Gandhi had to resign as Lok Sabha MP after being accused of holding an office of profit by being a Member of Parliament as well as the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council, which was a post with the rank of a Cabinet minister.Responding to a question whether the government was confident of getting the numbers to pass the bill, the second leader said, “We don’t have the numbers, but we decided to send it to the JPC so that there can be discussion on the bill…Let the opposition stall its passage and explain to the people why they did so.”The BJP also dismissed the opposition’s claims that the provisions were violative of the constitution. Responding to AIMIM chief Asasduddin Owaisi’s charge that the bills violate the principle of separation of powers and undermine the right of the people to elect a government, the second leader said the bills state that the offences should carry a jail term of five years or more, which implies it will be implemented only in serious cases.“Thirty days is sufficient time for the courts to consider and pass judgment…the bill also says that the dismissed minister or CM can be appointed again after their release. Where does it undermine the democratic process?”