The punitive American trade tariffs are upon us. In the period of economic uncertainty leading up to the US formally notifying them, one expected the just-concluded monsoon session of parliament to focus on a national response—that the government, mindful of the moment’s gravity, would engage with the opposition, present options to the public, and reassure businesses.
Instead, the government redirected focus to Bills mandating the dismissal of ministers jailed for criminal offences for 30 days, resulting in automatic forfeiture of office on the 31st day.
These constitutional amendments raise legitimate questions. While public faith in governance requires that those in power remain above suspicion, the proposed mechanism appears crude.
Democracy thrives on the presumption of innocence and due process, not assembly-line punishments that any government could misuse. To tie a minister’s tenure to the calendar of custody before guilt is established gives executive bodies disproportionate leverage.
Markets are bound to notice as well. Investors, already wary of tariff uncertainty, would weigh how these bills could unsettle Centre-state relations further if they become law. In states like Bihar, where elections are due, the mere perception that governments could be destabilised through preordained action is politically unsettling.
The message being sent—that electoral victories can be undone through legal mechanisms—may serve immediate political interests, but would hardly strengthen democratic norms. In any case, the complex mechanism to pass constitutional amendments will test the ruling coalition’s strength in parliament and its ability to persuade states to ratify them.
The opposition, for its part, has partially responded with a boycott of the Joint Parliamentary Committee examining the Bills.
The gesture may signal protest, but participation would enable opposition members to put tough questions on record and, if necessary, leave a dissent note that would stand as a formal counterweight. A boycott, by contrast, risks being read as abdication, ceding the field entirely to the ruling benches.
The main concern here is about priorities. The government should explain why it rushed through the introduction of these Bills and face the public’s questions about its motives.
The opposition, as the voice of the people in parliament, must use every available tool to hold the government to account. Even outside parliament, both sides need to prioritise resolving the growing economic crisis before addressing other issues.