Press Release: Key takeaways from ADR's webinar on "Decriminalisation of Politics: Is the 130th Constitutional Amendment the right path?"

27 views

Skip to first unread message

ADR India

unread,

Jan 21, 2026, 2:33:16 AM (4 days ago) Jan 21

to national...@googlegroups.com, national-el...@googlegroups.com, ADR India

21st January 2026

Key takeaways from ADR's webinar on "Decriminalisation of Politics: Is the 130th Constitutional Amendment the right path?"

ADR organised a webinar on “Decriminalisation of Politics: Is the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill the right path?” on 15th January 2026. The focus points for the webinar were as follows:

Can the proposed bill exceed the limits prescribed by the Constitution on qualifications or disqualifications of elected Members of House/State Assembly? Are the rules of disqualification different for Ministers and MPs/MLAs?
Is this move just the need for constitutional morality in electoral functioning, or is it a ploy to 'abuse law and investigative agencies' by the governments-in-power?
Is there any rule of law which allows a person to be incarcerated by executive fiat without a trial and conviction by a judicial officer?
Whether to constitute an offence and attract disqualification, one has to be triable by courts?
Is it practicable to expect investigating agencies such as the Police, CBI, ED, and NIA to ever file a case against a sitting PM?
Whether the Indian Judiciary, through a series of judgments, has been able to dissuade political parties from giving tickets to candidates with criminal background?
Whether the Indian judiciary is right in holding that de-barring persons against whom charges have been framed in serious/heinous crimes falls under the domain of Parliament?
Why is Parliament so reluctant to bring in a comprehensive legislation to prohibit persons with criminal background from contesting elections?
Whether the proposed bill will actually solve the problem of growing criminalisation of politics, as flagged by many constitutional bodies?

The moderator, Dr Vipul Mudgal (Trustee of ADR) highlighted that as per ADR data, in 2024, 46% of Indian MPs were facing criminal cases, and 31% of them were involved in matters such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery. He said that the number of such people has gone up by 55% since 2009. He estimated that if the number of MPs with criminal cases is increasing at a rate of 3.5% per year from 2009 to 2024, then by 2038, all our MPs in Parliament will have criminal cases against themselves. He said, "While the goal of a developed India is supposed to be achieved by 2047, nine years before that, all our MPs in the Parliament will have criminal cases against themselves. So, this is a very serious problem, which is like a disease. Now we have to treat this serious problem, this disease. But let's not treat the disease in such a way that the patient also dies along with the disease. This is the whole issue. So, ADR's view on this is that all such bills relating to prevailing criminality in our political system, should be discussed and deliberated upon very thoroughly."

The distinguished speakers comprised Shri Chakshu Roy (Head of Legislative and Civic Engagement Initiatives, PRS Legislative Research), Dr Laxmikant Bajpai (Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha and National Vice President, Bharatiya Janata Party), Ms Anamika Yadav (National Coordinator, All India Mahila Congress), Dr Fuad Halim (Senior Leader, Communist Party of India (Marxist)), and Shri T.S. Krishnamurthy (former Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India).

1. Shri Chakshu Roy (Head of Legislative and Civic Engagement Initiatives, PRS Legislative Research)

"Bill raises 4 broad questions which are important:

First, who has the authority to remove the Chief Minister and Prime Minister? In our parliamentary form of government, the ability to remove a CM or PM is vested with Parliament or State Legislative Assembly. To remove them, a No Confidence motion is required in the Parliament. Should that authority be removed from Legislature and granted to police authorities, which is an executive body?

Second issue is about federalism. The power to arrest exists both at centre and state levels with police authorities. When a central authority arrests a minister or a Chief Minister, it will lead to his/her removal and possibly infringe on federalism; or when state authorities arrest a central minister, it will also create next level of complications.

Third, about rule of law, if somebody is an accused and is arrested, it is not final whether the accused is convicted of that issue or not. We have seen in some cases that conviction has been overturned when the matter goes to the Supreme Court.

Fourth, do the PM and CM have the freedom in deciding who their Council of Ministers is? Does the bill restrict the choice of PM and CM to have the Council of Ministers they want? So broadly, the above issues can be discussed."

2. Dr Laxmikant Bajpai (Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha and National Vice President, Bharatiya Janata Party)

"When lawbreakers become lawmakers, then how can the public expect fairness and justice for public issues.

If corruption, money, and muscle power are used, then the consequence will be the misuse based on caste and religion. This will lead to a nexus between the criminals, politicians, and the bureaucracy, weak laws, delay in justice delivery, and the role of political parties. These are some of the reasons why this bill has been introduced. The aforesaid issues have adverse consequences for democracy and good governance, lead to decrease in public trust, weak institutions, and adversely impact the society. Criminality in politics is a big issue. To stop this criminalization, something has to be done. Using trial and error methods, we can move forward."

3. Ms Anamika Yadav (National Coordinator, All India Mahila Congress)

"Criminality is a serious issue. There is a need for discussion on this, and efforts must be made to end this. But it depends on the intention. 130th Amendment Bill is not a sincere effort in that direction. The aim is to finish the opposition and to weaken the democracy. The government does not want to remove criminals from electoral politics, they want to give tickets to those who have most criminal antecedents. There is one such example from Uttar Pradesh (Duddhi Assembly constituency) where a candidate was accused of raping a minor girl. He was accused in 2014, and in 2022 the party gave him a ticket. Later, he was made a legislator, and when he was convicted by the court, he had to be removed.

In the last 11 years, all institutions, such as the Enforcement Directorate, CBI, and income tax authorities, have been misused to trouble the opposition. Members of the opposition parties are being imprisoned and accused of false crimes."

4. Dr Fuad Halim (Senior Leader, Communist Party of India (Marxist))

"There are four issues based on which we are opposing this bill.
First, we say that there is one-fourth of democracy in India, and even that is diluted because we only elect our legislature, not the judiciary, executive or media - the three pillars of democracy where general people have no democratic control or exercise.

Second, the Legislature is a bicameral structure. Here, we do not elect the Upper House, and also the Prime Minister and Chief Minister are not directly elected in elections but indirectly. So a diluted 25% democracy is practiced in India. If that is taken away from people, then democracy will be further weakened.

Third, the separation of powers is also misused. If the executive is given power over an elected PM or CM or elected representative, then the process laid down in the Constitution to elect and remove our ministers will not be followed. The procedure for the removal of the minister, CM or PM, etc., is there in our Constitution. To give unchecked powers through this new bill and to empower the Executive like this will lead to a situation beyond the scope of the separation of powers and judicial oversight.

Last, the due process of law provided in the Constitution will be bypassed. For any party in power, this bill gives scope to misuse such a bill as we have seen that between 2014 and 2022, the majority of the ED cases are against opposition party members."

5. Shri T.S. Krishnamurthy (former Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India)

"The very purpose of this bill is certainly laudable. It is important that criminal elements are kept away as far as possible from the public administration. When a government servant is suspected to have violated the rules of administration, the government takes a step, suspends the person, conducts an inquiry and takes a decision whether he should continue or be punished.

Here, a different kind of step is adopted. I welcome any such step that is adopted. But, unfortunately, this bill has come as a piecemeal solution. The country needs larger electoral reforms. I endorse the view that a public servant with criminal antecedents cannot continue. I do appreciate the apprehensions of parties, namely whether the bill can be vindictively operated. The Ethics Committee in Parliament can supervise the ethical conduct of ministers and legislatures.

In my opinion, this should have been taken as a measure through the Ethics Committee to ensure that such persons should continue in office or not. There is an urgent need to bring about a comprehensive amendment so that criminal elements do not sway our legislative business."

Takeaway:

The discussion on this crucial topic was well-received by everyone. Several questions were raised by the members of the audience. Dr Mudgal concluded that more deliberations should be done on this bill, especially on the issues such as political weaponization of the bill and possibility of erosion of federal autonomy. He added, "The bill could result in rule by law instead of the rule of law, where political ends are served instead of justice. And then there's the fact that detention is increasing under the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). Detention can now extend up to 90 days. These are all points that require serious consideration. The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) also needs to consider whether this 30-day timeframe is appropriate. Should the timeframe be longer or shorter? On what basis did we decide on 30 days? Or will this only apply to ministers, chief ministers, and the prime minister? Why won't it apply to legislators, i.e., MPs and MLAs? And finally, could this be a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution? Could it weaken parliamentary democracy?"

Webinar link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu_t8q9GctA

Regards,

Association for Democratic Reforms

Contact Details

Association for Democratic Reforms/ National Election Watch

Media and Journalist Helpline

+91 80103 94248

Email: a...@adrindia.org

Maj. Gen. Anil Verma (Retd)

Head,

Association for Democratic Reforms,

National Election Watch