The development triggered sharp criticism from opposition benches, with Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and MP Abhishek Banerjee strongly attacking the Centre. Taking to social media, Banerjee accused the government of undermining federalism and misusing legislative powers. He alleged that the Centre’s real intention was to destabilize elected state governments under the guise of morality in public life.
In his post, Banerjee wrote that the government had “proven itself to be anti-people, anti-farmer, anti-poor, anti-Scheduled Castes, anti-tribals, anti-OBC, anti-federal and above all anti-India,” further alleging that it was treating the country as “private property” and “selling the Constitution.” He also questioned the government’s stance on national security, remarking that while it makes lofty speeches, it shows “no real initiative when it comes to protecting India’s sovereignty and borders, particularly in relation to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).”
According to the provisions outlined, if a prime minister, chief minister, or minister is arrested and remains in police custody for 30 days on serious charges, the head of state—either the President for the Union government or the Governor in the case of a state—would be empowered to act on the matter. If convicted with a sentence exceeding five years, the individual could be removed from ministerial office altogether.
The Lok Sabha session witnessed chaotic scenes following the introduction of the bills around 2 pm. Opposition MPs from Congress, TMC, AIMIM, and other parties stormed into the well of the House, raised slogans, and even tore up copies of the draft legislation in front of Amit Shah. Union ministers Kiren Rijiju and Ravneet Singh Bittu intervened to prevent opposition lawmakers from marching closer to the Home Minister’s bench.
Opposition leaders including K C Venugopal, Manish Tewari, Asaduddin Owaisi, and N K Premachandran argued that the proposal ran contrary to constitutional principles and the federal structure. They also claimed it overturned the jurisprudential doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty” and could potentially be weaponized for political vendetta, thereby threatening to convert India into a “police state.”
In a fiery exchange, Venugopal questioned Shah’s moral authority by pointing to his 2010 arrest in Gujarat. Shah, however, retorted that he had resigned on “moral grounds” prior to the arrest, insisting the allegations were false and that he did not return to office until fully discharged by the courts. “What are they teaching us about morality? I had resigned before my arrest. I want moral values to rise. We cannot be so shameless as to continue holding constitutional positions while facing serious charges,” Shah responded.
Despite the uproar, the bills were referred to a Joint Committee of Parliament comprising 21 members from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha. The committee is expected to submit its report by the end of the first week of the next parliamentary session, likely in November 2025.
The three bills introduced on Wednesday were the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
With the Centre defending the move as a step toward higher standards of probity in public life, and the opposition warning of an assault on democratic values, the stage appears set for an intense nationwide debate in the months to come.