The Joint Parliamentary Committee chaired by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Aparajita Sharangi has made several important recommendations on the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill. The committee recommended the use of the word ‘suspension’ in the bill instead of a provision to automatically ‘remove’ a prime minister, chief minister or minister from office while in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days in case of serious offences. The bill, aimed at curbing executive powers in the hands of people involved in serious crimes, initially said the minister would automatically lose office on the 31st if he did not resign.
After taking the views of various stakeholders on the bill, the committee pointed out that the words ‘removal’ or ‘dismissal from office’ carry a final and stigmatizing meaning, which does not apply until proven guilty. It is therefore recommended to have a provision for suspension of Ministers under Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Service Rules, 1965, which suspends a civil servant in custody for more than 48 hours. While both measures would keep the minister out of office, suspension is a modifiable process that does not presuppose a conviction. Only the Maharashtra government opposed the moratorium.
The committee also proposed to define the definition of ‘serious crime’ to be included in the bill. Initially, it was supposed to cover offenses carrying a sentence of 5 years or more, but some stakeholders demanded that it be extended to 7 years. This is because the five-year sentence would cover 140 different offenses under the Indian Justice Code, many of which do not directly affect the integrity of public life. In criminal proceedings, only offenses punishable with seven years’ imprisonment are considered serious. The Committee therefore recommends annexing a separate list of such offenses to the Bill so that the classification of offenses is not confusing.
Another important recommendation is to include an automatic refund or ‘sunset clause’ on suspension. In other words, if a minister is suspended for imprisonment and is subsequently acquitted by a court or released for lack of evidence, the suspension will automatically be revoked and he will be eligible for reinstatement. The move is expected to largely ease the fear of removing innocent ministers as political weapons as it is difficult to get bail within 30 days under stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. It has also been recommended to set up fast track courts for speedy disposal of cases of top constitutional officers.
Opposition parties boycotted the joint parliamentary committee meeting calling the bill ‘corrupt’ but Union Home Minister Amit Shah had earlier argued in favor of the bill, saying it was not against any opposition party but covered all chief ministers. The committee’s draft report noted that neither the present Constitution nor the Representation of the People Act, 1951, contained any clear guidelines on the arrest of persons holding executive positions. These recommendations put forward by the committee are an important step towards making the implementation process more transparent and impartial rather than the main objectives of the bill and it remains to be seen what the government takes a final decision in the next parliamentary proceedings.
