NEW DELHI: Union home minister Amit Shah on Monday slammed the opposition for opposing the proposed bills seeking removal of ministers from office if they are arrested and remain in custody.
In an interview with news agency ANI, Shah said that he "rejects the idea" that the country "cannot be governed without the person" who has been jailed.
"I want to ask the entire nation and the Opposition. Can a Chief Minister, Prime Minister, or any leader run the country from jail? Does that suit the dignity of our democracy?" Shah asked.
"Even today, they are trying that if they ever have to go to jail, they will easily form the government from jail. The jail will be made CM House, PM House and the DGP, Chief Secretary, Cabinet Secretary or Home Secretary will take orders from the jail. My party and I completely reject the idea that this country cannot be governed without the person who is sitting there. This will not affect anyone's majority in the Parliament or the Assembly. One member will go, other members of the party will run the government, and when they get bail, they can come and take the oath again. What is the objection in this?" he added.
The home minister also lashed out at the opposition and said that it is not appropriate for a democracy that the bill is not even allowed to be presented in Parliament.
"Let me make it clear, when an elected government brings a constitutional amendment in Parliament, protest is allowed. I've already said that this amendment will be sent to a joint committee of both Houses. Everyone can share their opinion there, and during voting, you can express your views. Since this is a constitutional amendment, it requires a two-thirds majority. But is it appropriate in a democracy that the bill is not even allowed to be presented in Parliament? Are both Houses meant for discussion or just noise and disruption?" Shah asked.
"We have also protested on different issues, but stopping the presentation of a bill in Parliament is not democratic. The Opposition must answer to the people," he added.
Isn't this double standards?
Shah also accused Congress leader Rahul Gandhi of double standards and recalled how he called the 2013 ordinance by Manmohan Singh-led UPA government "nonsense".
"Rahul Gandhi publicly called that ordinance nonsense and even tore it up in a press conference. The decision made by their own Prime Minister was mocked, and the PM became a sorry figure in front of the world. But now, the same Rahul Gandhi, to form a government in Bihar, is hugging Lalu Yadav who has been convicted. Isn't this double standards?" Shah said.
"In the Satyendra Jain (AAP leader) case, he was jailed in four cases, and in all those, the CBI filed a chargesheet. He is facing trial. You became a victim of AAP's propaganda. Now, let me talk about Congress. They are opposing this. However, during the UPA government, when Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister and Lalu Prasad Yadav was a minister who had been convicted, they introduced an ordinance stating that even a two-year sentence would not result in the cancellation of a member's membership until the appeal process was complete," he added.
This comes after the Centre tabled three Bills aimed for the removal of the Prime Minister, Union minister, chief minister or state/UT minister if they are arrested or kept in custody for serious criminal charges for 30 consecutive days.
According to the bills, if a lawmaker is in custody for 30 straight days for crimes punishable with five years or more in jail, they will automatically lose their post on the 31st day.
Amit Shah also moved a motion in the Lok Sabha to refer these three bills to a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) for further discussion. The Constitution does not have rules to remove a Prime Minister or minister under serious criminal charges.
This bill proposes amending Articles 75, 164, and 239AA so that ministers at the Union, state, and Delhi government levels can be removed if arrested for serious crimes.
However, the opposition accused the Centre of being "hell-bent on creating a Police state" and tore copies of the bills and threw paper bits at Shah as he tabled the One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment Bill, 2025 in the Parliament.
In an interview with news agency ANI, Shah said that he "rejects the idea" that the country "cannot be governed without the person" who has been jailed.
"I want to ask the entire nation and the Opposition. Can a Chief Minister, Prime Minister, or any leader run the country from jail? Does that suit the dignity of our democracy?" Shah asked.
"Even today, they are trying that if they ever have to go to jail, they will easily form the government from jail. The jail will be made CM House, PM House and the DGP, Chief Secretary, Cabinet Secretary or Home Secretary will take orders from the jail. My party and I completely reject the idea that this country cannot be governed without the person who is sitting there. This will not affect anyone's majority in the Parliament or the Assembly. One member will go, other members of the party will run the government, and when they get bail, they can come and take the oath again. What is the objection in this?" he added.
The home minister also lashed out at the opposition and said that it is not appropriate for a democracy that the bill is not even allowed to be presented in Parliament.
"Let me make it clear, when an elected government brings a constitutional amendment in Parliament, protest is allowed. I've already said that this amendment will be sent to a joint committee of both Houses. Everyone can share their opinion there, and during voting, you can express your views. Since this is a constitutional amendment, it requires a two-thirds majority. But is it appropriate in a democracy that the bill is not even allowed to be presented in Parliament? Are both Houses meant for discussion or just noise and disruption?" Shah asked.
"We have also protested on different issues, but stopping the presentation of a bill in Parliament is not democratic. The Opposition must answer to the people," he added.
Isn't this double standards?
Shah also accused Congress leader Rahul Gandhi of double standards and recalled how he called the 2013 ordinance by Manmohan Singh-led UPA government "nonsense".
"Rahul Gandhi publicly called that ordinance nonsense and even tore it up in a press conference. The decision made by their own Prime Minister was mocked, and the PM became a sorry figure in front of the world. But now, the same Rahul Gandhi, to form a government in Bihar, is hugging Lalu Yadav who has been convicted. Isn't this double standards?" Shah said.
"In the Satyendra Jain (AAP leader) case, he was jailed in four cases, and in all those, the CBI filed a chargesheet. He is facing trial. You became a victim of AAP's propaganda. Now, let me talk about Congress. They are opposing this. However, during the UPA government, when Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister and Lalu Prasad Yadav was a minister who had been convicted, they introduced an ordinance stating that even a two-year sentence would not result in the cancellation of a member's membership until the appeal process was complete," he added.
This comes after the Centre tabled three Bills aimed for the removal of the Prime Minister, Union minister, chief minister or state/UT minister if they are arrested or kept in custody for serious criminal charges for 30 consecutive days.
According to the bills, if a lawmaker is in custody for 30 straight days for crimes punishable with five years or more in jail, they will automatically lose their post on the 31st day.
Amit Shah also moved a motion in the Lok Sabha to refer these three bills to a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) for further discussion. The Constitution does not have rules to remove a Prime Minister or minister under serious criminal charges.
This bill proposes amending Articles 75, 164, and 239AA so that ministers at the Union, state, and Delhi government levels can be removed if arrested for serious crimes.
However, the opposition accused the Centre of being "hell-bent on creating a Police state" and tore copies of the bills and threw paper bits at Shah as he tabled the One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment Bill, 2025 in the Parliament.
You may also like
Children as young as four being sent home from school for 'racist' behaviour
Why Snoop Dogg is scared of going to movies with his grandkids?
Warning over 1 activity for anyone wearing contact lenses
Meghan blushes as Tan France cracks a cheeky joke in new With Love teaser
Inside the grim reality of Lily Phillips' world and how her parents REALLY feel about her work
