Decriminalisation of politics: Why separate changes needed to J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019?

As Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced three amendment Bills in the Lok Sabha to amend the Constitution, the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, on decriminalisation of politics, many wonder why a separate amendment was needed for J&K even after the abrogation of Article 370.

The three Bills seek to create legal frameworks to enable removal of the Prime Minister, Union ministers, CM and ministers in states from office if arrested and detained consecutively for 30 days for serious criminal offences attracting a jail term of five years or more.

The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposes to amend Articles 75, 164 and 239AA of the Constitution dealing with the Union Council of Ministers, Council of Ministers in states and Council of Ministers in NCT Delhi, respectively. The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeks to amend Section 45 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, which deals with UTs other than Delhi, J&K and Ladakh.

The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposes to amend Section 54 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which deals with the Council of Ministers in Jammu and Kashmir. Since there is a separate enactment for UTs (other than Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh) and a similar one for Jammu and Kashmir, the two statutes have been proposed to be amended along with the Constitution.

Different enactments

The abrogation of Article 370 in itself didn’t create a governance structure in Jammu & Kashmir. The system of governance, including the Council of Ministers, in the terror-hit UT was created by the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, and hence the amendment to the Act to achieve the objectives set out in the “Objects and Reasons” of the three identical Bills.

According to the “Objects and Reasons” of the Bills, “It is expected that the character and conduct of ministers the office should be beyond any ray of suspicion.”

It further said, “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.”