New Delhi: A section of the Congress is prodding the party leadership to boycott the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) that will examine the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, joining the growing chorus in the Opposition ranks to stay out of the panel which will be notified by the Centre. While the Trinamool Congress (TMC), Samajwadi Party (SP), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Shiv Sena (UBT) have already announced their decision to not join the committee, it is learnt that the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) may also opt out.
The Congress and RJD, which are coordinating closely in Bihar where their leaders Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav are on a ‘Vote Adhikar Yatra’, have not formally announced their decision on the matter yet.
With an increasing number of opposition parties disassociating themselves from the JPC, the Congress, which until Saturday maintained that it plans to join the committee to register its dissent against the bill, is now reconsidering its stance.
The party’s initial stand, which differed from that of its key INDIA bloc allies, had triggered talks of a rift in the alliance.
Speaking to ThePrint Monday, a senior Congress leader said the principal opposition party is not in favour of joining the 31-member JPC which will scrutinise the bill, along with two others, on removing the Prime Minister, chief ministers and other central and state ministers arrested or detained in custody for at least 30 days on serious criminal charges.
A senior RJD leader also told thePrint that “we will most likely not join the JPC”.
A top CPI(M) leader said that the party will take a call on the matter only if the Centre reaches out to it, requesting it to join the committee. “The decision of the TMC, SP, Shiv Sena (UBT) and AAP to boycott the committee means that it will have six fewer members. The RJD is also likely to boycott and that would mean that of the 14 Opposition MPs in the JPC, it will only have seven if the Congress, DMK, JMM and Left parties stay put. But that is unlikely to happen,” said the MP, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Under the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedures and Conduct of Business, the members of a parliamentary committee shall be appointed or elected by the House based on a motion or nominated by the Speaker. “No member shall be appointed to a Committee if unwilling to serve on it. The proposer shall ascertain whether the member whose name is being proposed is willing to serve on the Committee,” the rules state.
While the entire Opposition had vociferously opposed the three amendment bills when they were introduced in Parliament last week by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, TMC was the first in announcing that its MPs will not join the JPC to which the bills are being sent for further scrutiny. Its Rajya Sabha leader, Derek O’Brien, called the JPC an exercise in futility.
In a blog post, he said that while JPCs were originally conceived as democratic and well-intentioned mechanisms endowed with exceptional powers, “this purpose has eroded significantly post-2014, with JPCs increasingly being manipulated by the government in power”.
“Now, in the same committee which represents public accountability, procedures are bypassed, opposition amendments rejected, and meaningful debate replaced by partisan fluff,” he wrote.
The SP followed the TMC in announcing it won’t join the JPC, and was followed by the AAP and Shiv Sena (UBT).
On Monday, Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut posted on X: “Modi govt is pushing the 130th Constitutional Amendment to bulldoze democracy & people’s elected government. The JPC formed to review this bill is a mere stunt. Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray clarifies that Shiv Sena will not participate in such a JPC.”
Parties like the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), not formally aligned with either the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), in power at the Centre, or the INDIA bloc, have also not declared their stand yet. When contacted Monday, a BJD MP told ThePrint that its decision was pending.
According to its statement of objects and reasons, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill seeks to amend Articles 75, 164 and 239AA. “A minister, who is facing allegations of serious criminal offences, arrested and detained in custody, may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance and eventually diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people in him,” it states.
Under Article 368(2) of the Constitution of India, a Constitutional Amendment Bill must be passed in each House of Parliament by the majority of the total membership and by the majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
The NDA, which holds a simple majority in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, does not have the required numbers to independently secure passage of such a bill.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: From Bihar stage, Modi backs Bills allowing removal of PM, CMs. ‘Why should govts run from jail?’