Governance from Jail: The Ultimate Mockery of Democracy

Imagine this: a state drowning in floods. Villages swept away, families stranded on rooftops, children crying of hunger. Relief material lies locked in warehouses, waiting for files that never get signed. Why? Because the Chief Minister sits behind bars, claiming to govern from a prison cell. Files don't reach the jail, and those that do often return unsigned. Officers are paralysed, citizens suffer, and people die. Yet power clings stubbornly to prison walls. This is not democracy. It is its mockery.

- Kailash Vijayvargiya Urban development minister, MP government

Delhi has already lived this nightmare. When its Chief Minister landed in jail, governance froze. Promising policies—the Delhi Bazaar portal, Cloud Kitchen scheme, EV roadmap, and industrial plan—all lay suspended. Citizens bore the brunt while power sat caged.

It is against this backdrop that the 130th Constitutional Amendment has emerged. It stipulates that if a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister spends 30 consecutive days in custody for a serious crime (punishable by five years or more), they automatically lose office. If acquitted or released, they may return. The principle is simple: people should not be forced to suffer jailhouse governance. This is not punishment; it is governance hygiene. After all, a government servant is suspended after just 48 hours in custody. Should ministers, who direct the entire state machinery, be held to a lower standard?