'If Kejriwal Had Resigned...': Amit Shah Reveals Why Centre Tabled Bill To Oust Jailed CMs, PM
Amit Shah defends new bills allowing removal of jailed leaders, citing Kejriwal’s refusal to resign, calling the law a necessary anti-corruption measure for accountability in governance.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Friday launched a sharp critique of opposition parties for resisting three controversial bills that seek to remove top political leaders from office if they are jailed for serious offenses. In a pointed remark, Shah referenced former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, suggesting that had Kejriwal stepped down during his imprisonment, there would have been no need for the legislation.
Kejriwal, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor, was arrested in 2024 over the alleged Delhi liquor scam but chose not to resign, drawing intense criticism from the BJP for “running the government from jail.”
Similarly, Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji faced arrest in 2023 in a money-laundering case. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin kept him in the cabinet without a portfolio and reinstated him after he secured bail from the Supreme Court.
Shah, speaking at an event in Thiruvananthapuram, highlighted these examples to underline the need for the new law. “The Chief Minister of Delhi (Kejriwal) was running the government even after going to jail. Should the Constitution be changed or not? There was no need earlier under the BJP government. If Kejriwal had resigned, we wouldn’t be discussing this today,” he said.
On Wednesday, Shah described the three bills as a “major anti-corruption measure” and moved a motion in the Lok Sabha to refer them to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed scrutiny. The JPC will include members from both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
The government defends the bills as a step to curb corruption and prevent leaders involved in serious criminal offenses from occupying constitutional positions. However, the opposition has strongly opposed the move, labeling the legislation “draconian” and “unconstitutional.” They warn that the BJP could misuse central agencies to target non-BJP chief ministers and destabilize state governments.
As the bills were introduced, opposition benches erupted in protest. Some lawmakers tore up copies of the legislation and threw them toward the Treasury benches, with a few landing near the Home Minister.
Shah countered the opposition’s objections, emphasizing that the law is not aimed at any party and applies equally to BJP leaders, including the Prime Minister. “Do people want a Prime Minister or chief minister to run the government from jail? Critics ask why the Constitution didn’t include such provisions earlier. When the Constitution was framed, nobody imagined leaders would refuse to resign even after being jailed,” he remarked.
The Proposed Bills
The three bills introduced are:
- The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill – mandates the automatic removal of a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or minister if they remain in judicial custody for 30 consecutive days for offenses punishable by five years or more. Notably, this applies even before conviction, aligning elected officials with civil servants who are suspended upon arrest.
- The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill
- The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025
Citing historical instances, Shah noted that several chief ministers and ministers in the past had spent time in jail and resigned, stressing that the law had only been updated when circumstances demanded it. “Maintaining moral standards in a democracy is the responsibility of both the ruling party and the opposition,” he added.
Top Headlines
