The recently washed out Monsoon session of Parliament suddenly came to life on its penultimate day with the introduction of the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill and two accompanying bills, by Union home minister Amit Shah.The revised list of business of Lok Sabha on the night of August 19 sent the media, parliamentarians and opinion makers into a tizzy and true to the nature of mounting speculation in Lutyens circles, rumours were rife that these bills could be about grant of statehood for Jammu and Kashmir. Though, eventually that was not to be, the Bills’ text did prove sections of Lutyens correct, with their completely unexpected content. It was keeping in line with the Narendra Modi government’s characteristic knack of surprising one and all.It was clear that the next day August 20 was going to be more than eventful in the Lok Sabha, since the very moment the text of these Bills became public, the opposition made it clear that they would oppose their introduction tooth and nail.So what led to such extreme reactions ? Let us pause a bit and try to decipher. The main Constitution Amendment Bill and the enabling proposed legislations for the Union territories with legislature and Jammu and Kashmir, propose that the prime minister, union ministers, state and UT chief ministers and ministers, if arrested for any offence punishable with more than five years and remain in custody for 30 consecutive days, be removed from their position, by amending Articles 75, 164 and 239 AA of the Constitution, along with relevant amendments to the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.The Modi government’s argument is that criminalisation of politics needs a serious reform and this is a much-needed step to prevent those arrested for serious offences from continuing in their posts. The opposition argument is that this is a conspiracy to frame opposition governments through central agencies – ED and CBI – and then dislodge their governments by arresting CMs and ministers in false cases.Let us keep the politics aside here and look at the legal and legislative position of these bills.First and foremost, any Constitution Amendment Bill can only proceed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution. Since the Indian constitution is quasi-federal in nature, the question is whether the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill requires ratification by half of the state legislatures or does the parliament alone have the power to proceed by passing it in both Houses of Parliament.The Statement of Objectives of the Bill at this juncture does not provide clarity on the issue. Maybe as the Bill proceeds further and comes back to the House with the opinion of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), the Lok Sabha Speaker may provide clarity on the matter.There is also speculation on whether two-thirds majority of those present and voting would be required in this Bill. Though the bill text gives sufficient hint that in accordance with the provisions of Article 368, that will indeed be the case, but following the reading down of Article 370 by parliament in 2019, sceptics are not so sure.The next point of contention is that the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill provides for an elected representative’s removal from post in case of 30 days’ custody. Thus the government of the day is inserting provisions on existing Articles 75, 164 and 239 AA of the constitution, which lay down the law for the appointment of prime ministers, ministers, chief ministers and ministers at the Union government, states and Union territories with legislature.But according to the Representation of People’s Act 1951 (and its subsequent amendments) and also the landmark Supreme Court 2013 Lily Thomas judgement, one can only be disqualified as an MP or MLA, in case of conviction of two years and above in clearly defined offences. Also, you can continue on your post as long as you are eligible as an MP or MLA, though the constitution even further allows a non-member to be prime minister, minister, chief minister or minister in states and UTs for a period of six months.So, can a separate condition be added on an individual, in case one is legally eligible to be an MP or MLA, but not a minister ?This question arises since an amendment to the Representation of People’s Act’s Section 8 has not been proposed by the central government so far. Though even a hypothetical amendment may be legally suspect, since on which ground can an MP or MLA be denied to hold a position by adding a legally contradictory condition ?The proposed Bill allows removal based on detention and not conviction, which the critics argue contradicts the long practiced principle of natural justice – that one is innocent till proven guilty.Further, it will be interesting to see how the government will navigate the question of whether any article of the constitution can be in direct contradiction of any other article, whether in the original constitution or later, amended.The case here is that two articles mentioned as fundamental rights – Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty) appear to be affected by the proposed Constitution Amendment Bill.Given the acrimony between the ruling side and the opposition, it is crystal clear that in case the government manages to get these Bills passed in both Houses of Parliament, though the ruling coalition lacks two-thirds majority in both – Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha – the matter is most likely to land up at the Supreme Court.The three bills will face multiple tests, among these one of the key points will be constitutional morality versus established legal principles. The government view is that once there is a serious criminal case against an individual holding a high office, it is not desirable to continue in office, particularly when arrested. The counter argument is that there are already sufficient existing legal provisions to ensure that nobody held guilty by law can continue in office. With real examples of the misuse of central agencies for targeting political rivals in state governments, chance must be given to avail all legal remedies before showing the door to any individual.The choice of 30-day detention period is also being seen as arbitrary. Critics argue there is no legal or logical basis for this specific duration, and it appears to be a number chosen to align with the standard period for judicial remand. This makes the law seem like a tactical, rather than a principled, reform.Nagendar Sharma is the executive editor of Earshot.in – India’s first Dolby-enabled multilingual podcasting platform. He has formerly worked for BBC World Service and Hindustan Times. He also served as media advisor to the Delhi chief minister.