In India's system of democracy, the penalization of politics has long been an important concern, raising questions regarding the morality of elected officials who are charged with grave offenses. The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, aims to address this problem by requiring the removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or any other Minister being held for a "serious offense," regardless of their conviction, establishing a substantial break from the current constitutional framework. This amendment presents important constitutional concerns that need serious thought, even though its goal is to preserve constitutional morality and restore trust in government.

This paper explores the proposed legislation in light of the Indian Constitution's Articles 75, 164, 102, and 191, which control ministerial functions and qualifications. According to Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), disqualification now only occurs after conviction. The Bill appears to promote integrity in public life by moving the bar from conviction to incarceration, but it also runs the risk of weakening the democratic premise of voters' right to representation and the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 21. Using significant decisions from the courts like Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) and Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), the study discusses these constitutional concerns.