Power and Punishment

IN JUNE 1997 NEWLY sworn-in Prime Minister IK Gujral faced a severe test, one that threatened his hold on the high office he had assumed barely two months earlier. The Cen­tral Bureau of Investigation (CBI), acting under the supervi­sion of the Patna High Court, was closing in on Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad in what came to be known as the ‘fod­der scam’ case. A key figure in the ruling coalition, Lalu’s looming arrest after he was named as an accused plunged the United Front (UF) government into a crisis. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) demanded Lalu’s dismissal and the prospect of a sitting chief minister being arrested filled UF leaders with dread, all the more so as Lalu’s supporters made defiant claims that any move against their leader would be fiercely resisted.

Communist Party of India (CPI) leader Indrajit Gupta, then the home minister and known for speaking his mind, said in Parlia­ment that Lalu Prasad ought to step down while disagreeing with BJP’s demand that the Bihar government be sacked. As Gujral cast around in desperation—consulting leaders like Sharad Yadav, N Chandrababu Naidu, M Karunanidhi, and Harkishan Singh Surjeet as to how to defuse the ticking bomb—the idea that Lalu should step aside for his wife Rabri Devi, till then a homemaker, found favour. This was a good way to make things work, Gujral as­sured Lalu. With CBI lurking round the corner, the Yadav strong­man accepted the option. The government, which had just about survived the forced exit of HD Deve Gowda as prime minister, limped on till it finally fell in November 1997, when Congress withdrew support on grounds that the Jain Commission of In­quiry had indicted the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), then a part of UF, in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.

The Lalu episode upheld a red line that political parties did not cross. Arrest or even indictment in a corruption case meant the accused could not continue in office. It was not just about the practicalities of discharging executive functions but about propriety in public life which, despite a steady deterioration in norms, is not al­ways written into the law but expected to be observed by those in office. DMK leader V Senthil Balaji was a minister in the Tamil Nadu government when he was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on June 14, 2023 in a case of alleged money laundering relating to his previous tenure as transport minister in 2011-16 when the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) was in power. But Balaji did not resign as minister till February 2024. DMK defended him and Chief Minister MK Stalin accused ED of acting in a politically motivated manner, even praising his colleague’s resilience after the Supreme Court granted him bail in September 2024. Although bail had been granted due to the likelihood of a long trial, Balaji was promptly reinstated as minister, sparking a controversy with BJP which demanded cancel­lation of his bail. Balaji remained unfazed, claiming his reappoint­ment did not “violate” the bail order. It was only after the apex court presented him with a choice—either remain enlarged on bail or forego his freedom—in April 2025 did he quit again.

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal was arrested on March 21, 2024 by ED when he was Delhi’s chief minister for his role in the excise policy scam investigated by the agency. He became the first chief minister to be arrested while in office as he did not follow previous examples of leaders accepting that arrest or deten­tion made holding public office untenable. He did not even make arrangements for the state cabinet to meet in his absence under a designated second-in-command and in the months that followed Delhi’s governance, already impacted by the scandals engulfing the AAP government, ground to a standstill. The year was marked by unusually severe heat waves with Delhi recording 40 days of 40 degrees Celsius-plus temperatures and citizens subjected to water shortages and other privations. Kejriwal was finally released on bail in September 2024, but the court imposed conditions, such as barring him from entering his office that effectively prevented him from being chief minister. Left with no alternative, Kejriwal re­signed and AAP leader Atishi replaced him.

The instances of Senthil Balaji and Kejriwal made it evident that appeals to public morality were not enough to en­sure politicians holding ministerial office would quit if faced with imminent arrest in cases involving charges of serious misde­meanour. During the tenure of the United Progressive Alliance 2 (UPA 2), DMK leader A Raja was asked by his party to quit in No­vember 2010 following a growing clamour over the controversial sale of 2G spec­trum. He was arrested a few months later. Around the same time, Congress leader Ashok Chavan resigned as Maharashtra chief minister over corruption allegations relating to the Adarsh Housing Society.

The noise levels in Lok Sabha peaked on Wednesday, August 20, afternoon as Home Minister Amit Shah sought the introduction of three Bills, including the Constitution (130th) Amendment Bill 2025 that prescribes holders of constitutional office, such as the prime minister, chief ministers and Union and state ministers, must mandatorily resign if they are arrested or placed in detention for more than 30 days for an offence attracting a sentence that could ex­tend to five years or more. The Bill envisages the insertion of Clause 5(A) in Article 72 of the Constitution that provides for a minister to be removed from office by the 31st day in custody on the advice of the prime minister. If such advice is not tendered to the president, such a minister will cease to hold office anyway. Similar provisions have been made for the states through amendments to Articles 164 and 239AA, the latter applying to Delhi. Amendments are also proposed by way of the Government of Union Territories Act and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill.

The din in Lok Sabha caused by Trinamool Congress MPs op­posing the Election Commission’s (EC) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls was amplified by Opposition MPs protesting against the introduction of the Bills piloted by Shah. Congress MP Manish Tewari opposed the introduction of the Bills for being excessive and violating the basic structure of the Consti­tution. “The rule of law must prevail and that means a person is innocent until proved guilty… It makes the investigative officer the boss of the prime minister,” he said. His views were echoed by Samajwadi Party’s (SP) Dharmendra Kumar who said SP is totally opposed to the Bills. Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) MP NK Premachandran asked why the legislation were being brought to Parliament in a hurry, a query that saw Shah say he proposed to refer the Bills to a joint committee of Parliament for detailed consid­eration. Congress MP KC Venugopal sought to remind Shah that he had been placed under arrest when he was home minister in the Gujarat government. Shah was possibly anticipating the question. He pointed out that he had been later discharged from the case but nonetheless had resigned prior to being arrested in keeping with the principles of constitutional morality.

Shah’s response to Venugopal placed the Bills and the related arguments in focus. After all, a political leader holding a constitu­tional office is not expected to wait to be arrested before resigning. The adverse public reaction and pressure mounted by the opposi­tion are sufficient grounds for a leader to resign or be asked to do so by his party colleagues. I.N.D.I.A. bloc leaders opposed the Bills on grounds that this would provide avenues for political vendetta. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra said such legislation would facilitate the targeting of a chief minister or minister who could be arrested on any charge, proven or not, and made to resign. The assumption that a leader could be targeted by a false case may not be unfounded but the evidence is that this is not the exclusive preserve of the ruling party at the Centre. State governments and regional parties have been no laggards, with the politics be­tween DMK and AIADMK in the past resembling cyclical score-settling. The incarceration of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu when he was in the opposition was seen as a case of misuse of office by the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) government headed by YS Jagan Mohan Reddy. The Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government was moving against BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis in a case of alleged phone tapping when the coalition was ousted. The squabbling between former Congress leader Amarinder Singh and the Akalis was no less than a blood feud. There is no law that can prevent acts of political vendetta and victims have received succour from the courts that have in­tervened to halt a vengeful state or leader.

Do the Bills provide the government at the Centre a lever to act against an Opposition-ruled state or leader? Instances of Central agencies acting against state ministers or a chief minister have at­tracted the attention of the high courts and the Supreme Court. The cases against former AAP ministers sent to jail in cases of al­leged corruption came up for detailed consideration in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court which, even when granting relief to some leaders, did not dismiss the evidence or quash the trial. Opposition parties and state governments have insisted that action against their leaders is due to deliberate misuse of Central agencies. Even this might pass for the exigencies of politics but for the trend of ministers and even a chief minister refusing to resign despite courts not faulting the evidence. Bail granted on procedural grounds is promptly held up as vindication. Every legal stratagem is utilised to delay trial and muddle evidence. A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court rapped the Tamil Nadu government for naming 2,000 individuals in the cash-for-jobs case involving Balaji, express­ing the apprehension that justice may not be done. As has been seen in cases involving influential accused, the defence takes recourse to lawfare by battering the doors of the courts with incessant pleas and appeals. High-profile and expensive lawyers find ways to de­lay trial to create grounds for relief from higher courts, arguing that long incarceration goes against the principle of natural jus­tice. The Patna High Court ordered a CBI inquiry into the fodder scam in March 1996 and Lalu Prasad’s first conviction happened in September 2013.

The Modi government’s move with the Bills comes at a time when I.N.D.I.A. is looking to whip up sentiments over allegations that EC has colluded with BJP in “robbing” the Opposition of elec­toral victories. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was in Bihar leading a campaign against “vote chori” that the alliance wants to make the fulcrum of its attack on the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. The SIR and the ‘vote chori’ issue did provide a strong glue to the Opposition with DMK, Trinamool, Congress, SP, Shiv Sena (Uddhav) and others jamming Parliament almost every day of the Monsoon Session. The strike against corruption in high places put the Opposition on the defensive and gave NDA much-needed leverage to reverse the momentum and gain the upper hand.

Amit Shaharrested leadersArvind KejriwalIndian politicsMonsoon sessionOppositionParliament