The Opposition has strongly criticized what it calls a deliberate attempt by the ruling BJP to weaken state governments run by rival parties. Leaders allege that central investigative agencies are being misused to target non-BJP Chief Ministers by implicating them in cases and eventually sending them to jail. According to the Opposition, such actions are not only politically motivated but are also meant to destabilize democratically elected governments and create an environment of fear. They argue that this strategy undermines the spirit of federalism and damages the foundation of India’s democratic institutions, turning political rivalry into a battle of power rather than governance.
New Delhi Lok Sabha
A heated scene unfolded in the Lok Sabha when Union Home Minister Amit Shah presented the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, which proposes that the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, or any minister serving a jail term of more than 30 days for offences punishable with five years or more, can be stripped of their office. While the government defended the move as a step to restore moral standards in politics, Opposition leaders came down heavily on the proposal, branding it “unconstitutional” and “draconian.” They accused the ruling BJP of plotting to misuse central agencies to corner non-BJP leaders, place them behind bars, and in turn destabilize state governments. For the Opposition, this Bill represents less of a moral crusade and more of a political weapon aimed at weakening rivals through legal loopholes. The ruling alliance, however, insists that the amendment is meant to strengthen accountability, reduce corruption, and prevent those facing serious charges from holding key public offices.
Beneath the fiery exchanges in Parliament lies a more complex political puzzle. Passing a constitutional amendment requires support from two-thirds of both Houses, and the NDA on its own falls short of those numbers. Without Congress or other large Opposition parties on board, the Bill in its present form has no path to becoming law. This raises the question: why bring such a controversial proposal to the floor now? Political observers suggest that the move may not be about immediate legal change but rather about shaping public perception. By framing the debate around ethics and integrity, the government can portray itself as fighting to clean up politics, while putting the Opposition in a difficult spot for appearing to resist reforms. In essence, the Bill—whether passed or not—serves as a strategic tool in the ongoing battle for political narrative, showing how legislation in India often operates as much in the arena of public opinion as in the corridors of lawmaking.
