New Delhi [India], August 25 : Union Home Minister Amit Shah raised questions over the moral stance of Congress MP and Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, asking whether it has shifted after losing three consecutive elections
Shah referred to the incident in 2013 when the Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi had 'torn' an ordinance brought by then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to reprieve Lalu Prasad Yadav, contrasting it with his current resistance to the proposed bill to remove the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Cabinet Ministers jailed for more than 30 days.
In an exclusive interview with ANI, Amit Shah inquired, "Why did Rahul Ji tear the ordinance that Manmohan Singh brought to protect Lalu Ji? If there was morality that day, then what happened now? Just because you have lost three consecutive elections? Morality's standards are not connected with victory or loss in elections. They should be steady like the Sun and the Moon."
The ordinance gave convicted lawmakers a three-month reprieve to retain their seats following Lalu Prasad Yadav's conviction in the Fodder scam. It effectively negated a Supreme Court order on the disqualification of convicted MPs and MLAs and was later withdrawn.
Speaking about the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, which seeks the removal of any PM, CM, or Minister detained for 30 consecutive days, Amit Shah questioned whether it is "fair" that anyone in these constitutional posts should run the government from jail.
"In this country today, the number of NDA CMs is more. The PM is also from the NDA. So this bill does not raise questions only for the opposition. This raises questions for our CMs as well... There is a provision for bail for 30 days. If it is a fake type of case, then the country's High Court and Supreme Court are not sitting with their eyes closed. The High Court and Supreme Court have the right to grant bail in any case. If bail is not granted, then you will have to leave the post. I want to ask the people of the country and the Opposition, can a Chief Minister, a Prime Minister or a minister run their government from the jail? Is it appropriate for the democracy of the country," Amit Shah said.
"Right now, Narendra Modi is there, so there is no question of it. But if the Prime Minister of the country goes to jail, do you think it is right that the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister runs the government from jail? Is there such a belief in this country that the country will not run without the person sitting in the post? Your party has the majority, so someone from your party will come and run the government. When you get bail, you must go there... Why should we lose membership (of Parliament) after two years? During the Congress rule, there was a provision that if there is an order of imprisonment for more than two years from the Sessions Court, then your membership ends automatically," he added.
Referring to his arrest in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, Shah said he resigned the very next day the CBI summoned him. He added that he did not hold any constitutional post until the case was fully quashed.
""As I received the summons from CBI, I resigned the very next day. I was arrested later. The case went on, and the judgment also came that this was a case of political vendetta, and I am completely innocent. That judgment came later, I was granted bail earlier... Even then, I did not take oath and become the Home Minister again. Not only this, I did not take oath for any constitutional post until all the charges against me were completely quashed. What lessons on morality is the opposition teaching me?" Amit Shah said.
Shah added that the INDIA bloc is against the bill because they want to "run the government from jail."
"During Indira Ji's tenure, they tried to shield the PM, and even today, they are trying that if they ever must go to jail, they will easily form the government from jail. The jail will be made CM House, PM House and the DGP, Chief Secretary, Cabinet Secretary or Home Secretary will take orders from the jail, Can a country be run this way?" he asked.
Citing the cases of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia not resigning from their posts, Shah said that the ruling party "disagree with them in diminishing political or social morality."
"This new tradition came recently. 2 years back, there was no such case. The leader would typically resign after being accused and then enter politics after being released. Some ministers from Tamil Nadu did not give their resignations. Delhi CM and Home Minister did not give their resignations. We disagree with them in diminishing political or social morality to such a level," Shah said.
Amit Shah exuded confidence that the bill will be passed in the parliament.
"I am sure it will be passed. There will be many people in the Congress party and in the opposition who will support morality and maintain the moral ground," he said.
During the monsoon session of Parliament, Home Minister Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and a bill to amend the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. The bills were sent to the joint committee of Parliament.
The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeks the removal of any Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or any Minister who is detained for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable with at least five years of imprisonment.
If the arrested leader does not resign, the office will automatically fall vacant after 31 days. The bill allows for re-appointment post-release, providing a degree of flexibility.