Amit Shah: PM Modi Ready to Resign If Jailed, Includes Himself in Constitutional Amendment

New Delhi: Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Monday strongly defended the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, clarifying that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had deliberately included his own position in the proposed law that seeks to disqualify jailed ministers from holding office.

In an interview with ANI, Shah said the amendment is designed to strengthen democratic integrity. “The Prime Minister himself has included the post of PM in this,” Shah emphasised.

Drawing a sharp contrast with past practices, Shah remarked, “Earlier, Indira Gandhi had introduced the 39th Amendment protecting top posts from judicial review. PM Modi has brought a constitutional amendment against himself that if the Prime Minister goes to jail, he will have to resign.”

The bill, introduced last week, mandates that if the Prime Minister, any Union minister, or a state Chief Minister is arrested and detained for 30 days in a case carrying a minimum five-year jail term, the officeholder will automatically lose the position on the 31st day.

Shah argued that the Opposition’s resistance to the bill was misplaced. “Can a Chief Minister, Prime Minister, or any leader run the country from jail? Does that suit the dignity of our democracy?” he asked, adding, “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 Chief Minister’s House, Prime Minister’s House… My party and I completely reject this idea.”

He also underlined that the amendment would not undermine any party’s legislative majority. “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 to this?” he questioned.

Addressing frequent disruptions in Parliament, Shah said the bill would be sent to a joint committee for further debate. “Protest is allowed, 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?” he asked.