A controversial proposal is tabled that could alter the structure of India’s democracy in a dramatic way.
The bill mandates that if a Prime Minister, any Union minister, a Chief Minister, or state and Union Territory ministers are arrested and kept in custody for 30 consecutive days, they must resign on the 31st day or be automatically removed from office.
At first glance, the idea may appear bold, even revolutionary. It creates the impression of accountability, ensuring that those facing serious legal proceedings do not continue to hold the highest offices of power.
Supporters might argue that this strengthens democratic ethics by keeping governance free from individuals who are entangled in prolonged judicial custody.
However, beneath the surface, the bill poses dangerous consequences if enacted without strong safeguards.
The most alarming risk lies in its potential misuse. Imagine a future where a ruling power, with significant influence over investigative agencies or the judiciary, strategically targets political opponents.
By initiating cases and ensuring prolonged custody, such a regime could effectively unseat elected leaders, including the Prime Minister or Chief Ministers, without a true mandate from the people. This undermines the very foundation of democracy by bypassing the electoral process.
This move by some person in future may lead to dictatorship.
Therefore, while the intent of accountability may be commendable, the framework may be flawed. Any such bill must come with well-defined caveats, judicial independence and strict checks to prevent misuse.
Without these protections, it risks becoming a dangerous tool for authoritarian control rather than a safeguard of democratic values.
Prudence, debate and comprehensive review are essential before any move toward such legislation.
Venkat Arikatla
