New Delhi, Aug 25, 2025
A heated political row has erupted after Union Home Minister Amit Shah defended the Centre’s proposed law to disqualify ministers, including Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister, if they are jailed for over 30 days in cases involving serious offences. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal hit back strongly, raising concerns over false cases, selective targeting, and the alleged political misuse of probe agencies.

During an interview earlier in the day, Mr. Shah explained the intent behind the Constitution Amendment Bill, which has been sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for review. He said the law would not apply to minor offences but would cover cases such as corruption or charges that could lead to a minimum punishment of five years or more. “Is it right if a Prime Minister or Chief Minister runs the government from jail? Does that suit the dignity of our democracy?” he asked, adding that governance could continue with other members of the ruling party until the leader in question secures bail.

Responding on X (formerly Twitter), Mr. Kejriwal raised sharp questions. He asked what would happen in situations where leaders are framed in false cases and later acquitted. “If someone is jailed in a false case and later acquitted, how many years in jail should a minister face for levelling false allegations?” he wrote.

In a pointed attack on the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), he also highlighted the ruling party’s practice of inducting defectors from rival parties, many of whom face corruption charges. “The person who accepts leaders accused of serious crimes, clears the cases against them and names them minister, Deputy Chief Minister or Chief Minister, should such a Prime Minister or minister resign?” he asked.

The backdrop of this controversy lies in Mr. Kejriwal’s own arrest in June last year in connection with alleged irregularities in Delhi’s now-scrapped liquor policy. The AAP had maintained that he would continue as Chief Minister despite being in custody. His colleagues in the Delhi cabinet ran the government until he secured bail in September. Mr. Kejriwal stepped down shortly afterward, saying he would seek a mandate from the “people’s court” during the Assembly elections. However, AAP went on to lose that election earlier this year.

The Centre’s move to introduce the law, sources suggest, was triggered by the controversy over Mr. Kejriwal’s refusal to resign during his custody. The proposed law clearly states that any minister, including a Chief Minister or the Prime Minister, who remains in custody for more than 30 days after being accused of a serious offence carrying a punishment of at least five years, will automatically lose their office.

Opposition parties, however, have expressed fears that the legislation could be weaponized by the government to silence political rivals. They argue that with central investigative agencies already accused of bias, such a law would tilt the democratic playing field and push India closer to what they describe as a “police state.”

As the debate intensifies, the proposed law has become another flashpoint in the larger battle between the BJP and the opposition over accountability, misuse of investigative powers, and the fundamental balance between governance and democratic rights.