Why in News: The Centre introduced three Bills, including a constitutional amendment, proposing that the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers must vacate office if detained for offences punishable with five years or more of imprisonment, and may return only upon acquittal.
Introduction
- Towards the close of the Parliament session, the Centre introduced three Bills.
- While framed as measures to promote probity and accountability, the proposals raise deep concerns about centralisation of power, erosion of federalism, and violation of constitutional principles.
The Proposal and Its Implications
- Disqualification on detention: Leaders lose office not on conviction, but merely upon detention by police/agency.
- Return only on acquittal: Creates instability in governance during pendency of trials.
- Executive overreach: Shifts power of removal from judiciary/people to law enforcement agencies.
- Threat to democracy: Allows unelected officials to undo the electoral mandate.
- Erosion of presumption of innocence: Contradicts the constitutional safeguard that one is innocent until proven guilty.
Concerns of Misuse and Centralisation of Power
- Central control of agencies: ED, CBI, and other investigative agencies are under Union control; hence, provisions are unlikely to apply equally to the PM.
- Selective targeting: Opposition leaders, particularly Chief Ministers, have been arrested, while ruling party leaders face no action.
- Lawfare politics: Law becomes a tool to weaken rivals rather than to uphold justice.
- Weak justification of “equal applicability”: Centre claims it binds the PM too, but practically it insulates the Union while exposing States.
- Arbitrary concentration of power: Undermines federal checks and enhances central dominance.
Liberty and Criminal Justice Concerns
- Stringent bail conditions: Harsh provisions in PMLA and UAPA make obtaining bail extremely difficult.
- Judicial diffidence: Courts have been cautious in granting bail, making detention almost equal to punishment.
- Presumption of guilt: The proposals effectively punish before trial and conviction.
- Impact on governance: Elected governments destabilised through police action rather than judicial verdict.
- Erosion of justice principles: Accountability must flow from conviction, not suspicion or detention.
Violation of Federal Principles
- Disproportionate impact on States: Detention-based disqualification will hit State/UT governments more than the Union.
- Centre-State imbalance: Central agencies can destabilise elected State governments at will.
- Governor’s enhanced veto role: Recent trends show Governors being used to override State legislatures; this adds another lever of control.
- Erosion of basic structure: Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati case).
- Subversion of popular will: Voters’ mandate in States can be negated by agency action.
Existing Legal Safeguards
- Representation of People Act, 1951: Already disqualifies legislators on conviction for serious offences.
- Judicial role intact: Current framework ensures disqualification flows from judicial verdict, not police action.
- Proposed regime is excessive: Creates parallel grounds for removal without judicial finding.
- Guilty until proven innocent: Reverses constitutional principles of criminal jurisprudence.
- Dishonouring democracy: People’s verdict undermined by administrative detention.
Conclusion
The constitutional path is to strengthen speedy trials, ensure independence of investigative agencies, and uphold presumption of innocence.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper II – Polity & Governance
- Federalism as a basic feature of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati case).
Mains Practice Question
Q. Probity in governance cannot come at the cost of justice and federal principles. Critically examine the recent proposal to disqualify elected executives on detention in light of constitutional morality and Centre-State relations.