The Parliamentary calculus: Will it get a two-thirds majority?
Under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, a constitutional amendment requires a majority in both the Houses (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) at two levels:
A majority of the total members (i.e. more than 50% of the total membership of the House).
A two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.
Lok Sabha scenario
The Lok Sabha currently has 542 members. This means that the support of at least 272 members is required for the passage of the bill (a total majority). If all 542 members participate in the vote, the support of 361 members will be required for a two-thirds majority. The NDA has 293 members in the Lok Sabha, which is 68 votes short of the two-thirds majority.
Rajya Sabha situation
The Rajya Sabha has 239 members, meaning the support of 120 members is required for a total majority. If all the members participate in the voting, a two-thirds majority of 160 members is required. The NDA has 132 members here, which is 28 votes short of two-thirds.
Obviously, it will not be easy for the NDA to get the bill passed, especially when the opposition, including the Congress, is united against the bill. The Congress says that the bill is not only an attack on the federal structure but also completely unconstitutional, because according to the Indian judicial system, no one can be considered guilty until proven guilty.
Approval of state assemblies
The bill affects the federal structure, so it will need the approval of at least half the state assemblies by a simple majority after its approval by Parliament. Since the NDA has governments in most of the states, the government may not have much difficulty at this stage. However, states ruled by the opposition, such as West Bengal, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu, may strongly oppose the bill, which will increase political tensions.
Opposition's stance and government's "conspiracy"
The opposition alleges that the bill is a pretext for fighting corruption, while in reality the Modi government wants to use it to destabilize opposition governments. In the last 11 years, investigative agencies like the ED and the CBI have a history of allegedly being used as pressure against opposition leaders. In such a situation, the bill could become a weapon to target chief ministers or ministers of opposition-ruled states. If a leader is taken into judicial custody, his automatic dismissal could weaken state governments, which would be a political advantage for the NDA.
Disadvantages and political games
The potential disadvantages of this bill are several:
Attack on federal structure: The bill could undermine the autonomy of state governments, as administrative decisions like judicial custody could be taken under political pressure.
Violation of judicial principles: According to the Indian judicial system, it is unconstitutional to presume guilt before proof of guilt. This bill ignores this principle.
Political Malice: The opposition alleges that this bill is part of the NDA's political strategy, which aims to defame the opposition and portray it as a supporter of corruption. If the opposition does not support this bill, the government can gain political advantage by portraying it as opposed to action against corruption.
Mockery on the government
Looking at this "anti-corruption" campaign of the Modi government, it seems that it has fallen into a trap of its own making. On the one hand, it loudly claims that "the government will not run from jail", but on the other hand, it is accused of using the ED and CBI as weapons against the opposition. If this bill is not passed, the government will say that the opposition is a supporter of corruption, and if it is passed, the opposition state governments will be in danger. Wow, what a chess move! But sir, the eyes of the public are no longer so dim that they cannot see this political drama. This bill seems less like a political statement, more like a political statement, the aim of which is to put the opposition in the dock.
Role of Joint Parliamentary Committee
The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) will consider the bill and submit its report on the first day of the session. If the opposition joins the committee, it can suggest important amendments, such as making dismissal mandatory after confirmation of conviction instead of judicial custody. According to the current law, parliamentary membership automatically lapses on conviction of two years or more. The opposition can suggest reductions or other amendments, but whether the government will accept these suggestions is a big question.
Conclusion
This constitutional amendment bill walks a thin line between political maneuvering and the fight against corruption. The NDA does not have a two-thirds majority, and strong opposition from the opposition could block it in Parliament. But if the bill is passed through political pressure or maneuvering, it could pose a serious threat to the federal structure and judicial principles. This "anti-corruption" drama of the government may score it some political points, but in the long run it could weaken the fabric of Indian democracy. The public should watch this political game carefully and decide whether this bill is against corruption or a new chapter in political conspiracy. The calculation of Parliament: Will it get a two-thirds majority?
Under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, a constitutional amendment requires a majority in both the Houses (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) at two levels:
A majority of the total members (i.e. more than 50% of the total membership of the House).
A two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.
Lok Sabha scenario
The Lok Sabha currently has 542 members. This means that the support of at least 272 members is required for the passage of the bill (a total majority).If all 542 members participate in the voting, the support of 361 members is required for a two-thirds majority. The NDA has 293 members in the Lok Sabha, which is 68 votes short of the two-thirds majority.
Rajya Sabha situation
The Rajya Sabha has 239 members, meaning the support of 120 members is required for a total majority. If all members participate in the voting, the two-thirds majority will require 160 members. The NDA has 132 members here, which is 28 votes short of the two-thirds majority.
Obviously, it will not be easy for the NDA to get this bill passed, especially when the opposition, including the Congress, is united against it. The Congress says that the bill is not only an attack on the federal structure but also completely unconstitutional, because according to the Indian judicial system, no one can be considered guilty until proven guilty.
Approval of state assemblies
The bill affects the federal structure, so it will need the approval of at least half the state assemblies by a simple majority after being approved by Parliament. Since the NDA has governments in most of the states, the government may not have much difficulty at this stage. However, opposition-ruled states, such as West Bengal, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu, may strongly oppose the bill, which will increase political tension.
Opposition's stance and the government's "conspiracy"
The opposition alleges that the bill is a pretext for fighting corruption, while in reality the Modi government wants to use it to destabilize opposition governments. In the last 11 years, investigative agencies like the ED and the CBI have a record of being used as pressure against opposition leaders. In such a situation, the bill could become a weapon to target chief ministers or ministers of opposition-ruled states. If a leader is taken into judicial custody, his automatic dismissal could weaken state governments, which would be a political advantage for the NDA.
Disadvantages and political games
The potential disadvantages of this bill are several:
Attack on federal structure: This bill could weaken the autonomy of state governments, as administrative decisions like judicial custody could be taken under political pressure.
Violation of judicial principles: According to the Indian judicial system, it is unconstitutional to consider someone guilty before being proven guilty. This bill ignores this principle.
Political malice: The opposition alleges that this bill is part of the NDA's political strategy, which is aimed at defaming the opposition and portraying it as a supporter of corruption. If the opposition does not support this bill, the government can gain political advantage by portraying it as opposed to action against corruption.
Mockery on the government
Looking at this "anti-corruption" campaign of the Modi government, it seems that it has fallen into a trap of its own making. On one hand, it loudly claims that "the government will not run from jail", but on the other hand, it itself is accused of using the ED and CBI as weapons against the opposition. If this bill is not passed, the government will say that the opposition is in favor of corruption, and if it is passed, the opposition state governments will be in danger. Wow, what a chess move! But sir, the eyes of the public are no longer so dim that they cannot see this political drama. This bill seems less like a political statement, more like a political statement, aimed at putting the opposition in the dock.
Role of the Joint Parliamentary Committee
The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) will consider the bill and submit its report on the first day of the session. If the opposition joins this committee, it can suggest important amendments, such as making dismissal mandatory after confirmation of conviction instead of judicial custody. According to the current law, parliamentary membership automatically lapses for a sentence of two years or more. The opposition may suggest a reduction or other amendments, but whether the government will accept these suggestions or not is a big question.
Conclusion
This constitutional amendment bill walks a thin line between political cunning and a war against corruption. The NDA does not have a two-thirds majority, and strong opposition from the opposition could block it in Parliament. But if the bill is passed through political pressure or cunning, it could pose a serious threat to the federal structure and judicial principles. This "anti-corruption" drama of the government may score it a few political points, but in the long run it could weaken the fabric of Indian democracy. The public should watch this political game carefully and decide whether this bill is an anti-corruption or a new chapter in political intrigue.
References
Hindustan Times,
The Hindu,
India Today,
Times of India,
