In 2025, the Indian government’s decision to table bills aimed at removing elected leaders—including Prime Ministers (PMs) and Chief Ministers (CMs)—who have been arrested on serious charges marks a concerning turn in the nation’s democratic trajectory. What may on the surface appear as a move to uphold integrity and accountability risks crossing into government overreach, eroding India’s democratic values, and destabilizing the machinery that sustains parliamentary democracy.
This legislative push comes on the heels of another controversial decision in 2023, when the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and allied officials were granted immunity from legal proceedings, even in the Supreme Court. The two developments in tandem paint a larger picture of institutional shielding, weakening checks and balances, and further centralization of power that many experts and opposition voices view as dangerous precedents in a vibrant democracy.
Also read: Opposition Seeks CEC Impeachment Over ‘Vote Chori’ Row
Government Overreach and Democratic Erosion
The very notion of removing elected representatives based solely on their arrest raises numerous constitutional and democratic concerns. Arrests, especially in India’s often-politicized legal environment, do not equate to guilt or convictions; they are frequently weapons of political vendetta. The new bills, if enacted, could accelerate the premature removal of leaders in ways that undermine due process, a fundamental tenet of democracy.
Moreover, the bills specifically targeting elected officials raise questions about selective enforcement and the broader intent to weaken opposition governance. Powerful parties, notably the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), may weaponize such provisions against non-BJP governments, leveraging administrative and legal machinery to destabilize adversaries—a practice already seen in various forms historically.
A Pattern of Political Weaponization
While the proposed bills would institutionalize a mechanism for removal upon arrest, the BJP has historically used administrative and legal pressure to target opposition without such explicit laws. For example, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Delhi has faced continuous harassment where ministers were arrested on questionable charges, only to be released later without substantive proof. These arrests affected governance and public perception but remained part of a broader strategy of political pressure rather than legal conviction.
Similarly, other non-BJP-led states have witnessed multiple instances where ministers and elected officials were detained briefly under dubious circumstances, often coinciding with election cycles or critical votes. These tactics disrupt governance and create an environment of instability, which the new bills could exacerbate by formalizing what is currently an extra-legal or informal political tool.
The 2023 Immunity to Election Officials: A Parallel Threat
The bills to remove elected leaders suspended on arrest come after the 2023 move to grant sweeping immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner and allied officers, shielding them from legal scrutiny, even at the Supreme Court. The decision drew widespread criticism as it essentially placed the election machinery beyond judicial review, risking accountability.
Institutional immunity without checks fosters power concentration and creates an uneven playing field where electoral disputes and grievances struggle to find redress. Critics argue that the immunity and these new bills together reflect a trend toward insulating the ruling party and the government from democratic accountability at multiple levels, threatening the independence of vital democratic institutions.
Opposition Protests and Promises Parliamentary Disruption
Predictably, opposition parties have not taken the bills lightly. Congress and others have vowed strong protests in the Lok Sabha, promising to disrupt parliamentary proceedings and mobilize public opinion against what they term an “authoritarian overreach.” The Congress argues that the government is deliberately trying to destabilize non-BJP governments by removing their leadership through politicized law enforcement rather than democratic means, with the Trinamool Congress alleging likewise.
These concerns are not without merit, considering the historical context. Opposition leaders point to the repeated misuse of central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation to target political adversaries under successive BJP governments. It is worth noting that across the 5000 or so cases filed, there have only been 40 convictions. This dodgy track record has given the Opposition plenty of cause for legitimate concern.
Institutional reforms, critics warn, should empower democracy, not weaken it by undermining elected leadership and enabling executive overreach.
The Threat to Parliamentary Democracy and Stability
Democracies thrive on stable governance, respect for the rule of law, and judicial independence. The proposed bills risk introducing volatility by binding the fate of elected leaders too directly to arrest events—often sudden, politically charged, and sometimes without subsequent conviction.
Such mechanisms can incentivize the ruling party or its machinery to pursue arrests as political tools to dismantle rival governments swiftly. This would erode the constitutional principle that elected representatives continue in office unless proven guilty through due process. The resultant instability in state governments and the Union could have far-reaching consequences for policy continuity, public trust, and democratic legitimacy.
A Call for Safeguarding Democracy
India stands at a critical juncture where protecting democracy and empowering institutions must outweigh political convenience. While accountability and integrity in public office remain essential, they cannot be achieved by circumventing due process or enabling arbitrary removals. These bills, in conjunction with the immunity granted to election officials, risk setting dangerous democratic precedents that concentrate power and undermine opposition voices.
True democratic strength arises from the ability of citizens to hold leaders accountable through elections, judicial processes, and transparent governance—not through expedited legislative sanctions that risk becoming tools of political vendetta.
India’s democracy deserves reforms that strengthen institutions impartially, enhance transparency, and foster an environment where all political voices can compete fairly. Anything short of this is a step towards erosion, instability, and loss of the democratic fabric that has defined the world’s largest democracy.
