The debate on the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill is intensifying. Opposition parties are constantly making statements against this. He says that this law is just a dictatorship. At the same time, Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren has strongly criticized the Central Government on the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill on Monday.

He said that the BJP -led government is taking steps to “weak and divide” the country. Soren alleges that the talk of development and strength is limited to the speeches of BJP leaders.

What did Hemant Soren say on SIR?

Soren said, “Everyone is seeing what kind of constitution is being amended. Work on the special intensive revision (SIR) of the voter list is going on and people should understand its effect.

Taking a dig at the central government, he said that the purpose of these decisions is to weaken the democratic structure. The Chief Minister said in a conversation with reporters outside the assembly that the talk of development is limited to political speeches only.

India alliance performance

Leaders of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Congress and ‘India’ alliance performed strongly against the ongoing SIR and 130th Constitution Amendment Bill in Bihar outside the assembly on Monday morning.

There is a provision in this bill that if the Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Minister stays in jail for 30 days or more, then they will not be able to remain in office. The opposition says that this law is a weapon to weaken political rivals.

Reaction to Rahul Gandhi’s visit

Appreciating Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s ‘Voter Adhikar Yatra’, Hemant Soren said that it is necessary to make the country aware of the “misdeeds of the central government”. He said, “We have been elected by the public, so they have a better way to go. Public court is the largest court in the country. ”

Soren’s statement may intensify the conflict between the central and the state government in the coming time.

Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has made a big disclosure about the bill introduced for the 130th amendment of the Constitution on Saturday (August 23, 2025). Kiren Rijiju said that when the government was preparing this bill to remove the Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Minister from the post when the government was involved in serious crimes and being in jail for 30 days, Prime Minister Narendra Modi refused to give any exemption in this bill for himself.

Rijiju said that Prime Minister Modi had said in the cabinet meeting that recommendations have been made that the Prime Minister should be kept out of the purview of this bill, but PM Modi disagreed with these recommendations.

What Union Minister has revealed about the bill,

Union Minister Kiren Rijiju told the news agency ANI, “PM Modi told the cabinet that he has rejected the recommendations to keep the Prime Minister out of the bill. Prime Minister Modi refused to give any exception to the post of Prime Minister.” He said, “The Prime Minister is also a citizen of the country and he should not get special security.”

He said, “Most of the chief ministers in the country are from our party. If they do anything wrong then they will have to give up their position. Ethics should also be important. If the opposition kept morality at the center of this bill, he would welcome it himself.”

What provisions have been made in the bills

The three Bills introduced by the Central Government in the Lok Sabha are the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Amendment) Bill and the Union Territory (Amendment) Bill. There is a provision in these bills that if a minister, Chief Minister or even Prime Minister sitting on the post is arrested for a criminal case or in custody for 30 consecutive days, which has a provision of sentence of at least 5 years or more, then he will have to withdraw from his post within a month.

ALSO READ: ‘Vice Presidential election will also be used to send PM-CM jail’, Mallikarjun Kharge’s big statement

In the Lok Sabha, Home Minister Amit Shah introduced a bill to be removed from the Chief Minister of the states to the Prime Minister of the country for being removed for 30 days, which has been sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee after opposition from the opposition. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s first reaction has come on this bill.

What did Shashi Tharoor say on this bill?

Shashi Tharoor said that I have not yet read this bill, but initially I do not see anything wrong in this bill that the guilty people should resign from their ministerial post. If you spend 30 days in jail, can you remain a minister? This is a matter of common sense. Therefore, I do not see anything wrong in it. But if there is any other thinking behind this, then you will have to read this bill well. I am neither supporting this bill nor opposing it without studying.

If the bill was sent to JPC, what did Tharoor say?

On the question of sending the bill to JPC, Tharoor said, ‘If it is sent to JPC to discuss the bill then it is a good thing. I think it is necessary for our democracy that all subjects should be discussed within the committee.

Opposition is opposing this bill?

As soon as Amit Shah introduced this bill in the Lok Sabha, the opposition MPs created a ruckus on it. Even tearing copies of the bill, he bounced on Amit Shah. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has called it a very rigorous bill. He said, ‘Tomorrow you can file any case against any Chief Minister, keep him in jail for 30 days without his conviction and then he will not remain the Chief Minister? This is completely unconstitutional.

What was the provision among the bills on which there is a ruckus?

Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the 130th Amendment Bill of the Constitution in the Lok Sabha. According to this bill, if the person sitting in the Prime Minister to any minister is kept in jail for 30 consecutive days in a criminal case, then he will have to resign on the 31st day, otherwise he will be removed from the post.

ALSO READ: ‘Can’t make any inspector the boss of Prime Minister’, what did Manish Tiwari say if Amit Shah introduced the bill in Parliament?