Amit Shah in 2010 and The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill in 2025

The minute Union home minister Amit Shah rose from his seat in Parliament to introduce the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, to propose an amendment to empower governors and the president to remove any chief minister, minister or even the prime minister if they spent 30 days in custody on serious charges (even without being convicted), it was clear that another death blow to voters’ rights had been dealt.

After all, it is the people of this country who have a right to choose a candidate; this is a right granted by the Constitution. The judiciary too has been cut to size – it no longer matters whether the chief minister (or prime minister) has been pronounced guilty; even before a conviction, they can no longer hold their post. The first judicial principle – innocent until proven guilty – finds no space in this Bill.

Essentially, The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposed by Shah, would likely turn on its head the very basis by which an MLA or MP becomes a minister, chief minister or prime minister. It is the people’s will, exercised through elections that are “free and fair”.

No matter how much the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or the Narendra Modi government cry foul of the dark days of the Emergency imposed by the Congress in the 1970s, their move to introduce this Bill shows things are in fact worse today. Preceded by several controversial moves against the Opposition, including jailing two incumbent chief ministers close to the 2024 elections and suspending over 100 Opposition MPs while controversial Bills were passed, this proposed constitutional amendment is another strong indicator of an Emergency that has remained undeclared on paper, but is creeping up quickly.

Given the way investigative agencies have been hounding Opposition leaders, it is reasonable to believe that the proposed Bill would most likely be used only to unseat ministers and chief ministers from Opposition parties. Governments that can’t be won through a ‘free and fair’ election by Modi and Shah’s party can now be toppled simply by arresting leaders.

Reminder of 2010

Amit Shah proposing the Bill today is in itself quite something.

It reminds one of 2010, when Shah, who was then Gujarat chief minister Modi’s trusted home minister, had to spend more than three months in jail on the serious charge of committing murders.

Shah may strike back, saying he was acquitted of all charges in 2014, or that he resigned from his post before his arrest (as he stated in parliament). But the irony has not escaped anybody.

The Sohrabuddin murder case and Judge Loya’s death

Shah was taken into custody by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2010 for the murder of a Gujarati businessman Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife Kauser Bi.

In 2005, the Gujarat Police, then under Shah, had killed the duo claiming that Sheikh belonged to an Islamic militant group. Later, three top policemen were charged with murder for staging their killing in a fake gun battle. Sheikh’s close aide, Tulsiram Prajapati, was killed too.

When Shah was arrested by the CBI in 2010 in the sensational case, he had denied the charges. Importantly, he had also alleged that he was being targeted by the Congress simply because he belongs to an Opposition party, the BJP.

The CBI had then opposed his bail and wanted the case to be transferred out of Gujarat for fear of being influenced by Shah. The Supreme Court, in 2012, had called for the case to be shifted to Mumbai.

On December 1, 2014, B.H. Loya, the judge presiding over the case in the special CBI court in Mumbai, died in Nagpur under questionable circumstances. He was there to attend a colleague’s daughter’s wedding.

Barely a month later, on December 30, 2014, a new judge assigned to the court dropped the charges against Shah for “lack of evidence”. Shah was by then the BJP’s national president, and the most powerful man standing next to Modi – elected prime minister just months before that. Going by the same logic Shah had used against the Congress in 2010, the CBI was firmly under the Modi government by then.

In November 2017, The Caravan had published an important report with “shocking details” around Judge Loya’s death in Nagpur and recounted “a chilling description of what Loya went through while presiding over the Sohrabuddin case”. The report had also highlighted that at the time of his death, the Sohrabuddin case was the only one Judge Loya was hearing.

Today, Shah is at the level he is only because the charges against him were not proven in court. He was in jail for far longer than 30 days – but that was not enough to cast a blemish on his political career or force him to take a step back. His political ascent continued despite this case, even though he was no longer a minister in Gujarat, and he continued to represent the people who had elected him as an MLA.

But what if the Bill he is proposing in parliament was brought by the then ruling party in 2010 and passed as a law? Chronology samajhiye, would he have been able to perform a star role for the BJP in 2014?

Kejriwal and Balaji factor?

With Shah as the Union home minister – and with central investigation agencies which are blatantly targeting only Opposition leaders under his thumb – it is important to remember the two arrests of Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren and former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal. Though Soren resigned from the post of chief minister in 2024 when it was clear that the Enforcement Directorate would arrest him under the draconian Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Kejriwal refused to. This came as a constitutional challenge for the BJP, which was unable neutralise the Aam Aadmi Party with the force it wanted to use, prior to a crucial election.

Let’s also not forget the challenge the BJP and its Tamil Nadu governor faced with the opposition DMK in the case of minister V. Senthil Balaji. The DMK leader in the M.K. Stalin cabinet continued for about eight months in spite of his arrest by the ED in 2023. Stalin kept him in the cabinet, though without a portfolio. Governor R.N. Ravi had dismissed Balaji from the Council of Ministers without consulting the chief minister. It was a blatant violation of constitutional norms, and Ravi was forced to keep that order in abeyance.

Shah’s Bill now wants to bring in an amendment to avoid exactly these situations in the future, in an Opposition-ruled state.

Since passing a Bill in Parliament is also a numbers game, it will not be easy for the BJP with no majority on its own to amend the Constitution. Nevertheless, August 20 will be remembered in India’s political history as a dark day simply because such a blatant strike to wipe out the Opposition was attempted by the ruling party.

Since a minister, chief minister and prime minister draw their legitimacy by dint of being an elected leader, let’s not forget that this strike by the Modi government was launched to undermine the very basis from which the Constitution draws its power – of the people, by the people and for the people.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.