Polity · 18 Jul 2026

130th Constitution Amendment Bill

Assertion (A): The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 proposes removal of a Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Minister after 30 consecutive days in judicial custody for an offence carrying five or more years of imprisonment. Reason (R): The Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) held that disqualification of a legislator occurs immediately upon conviction and sentencing to two years or more of imprisonment, without any appeal-pending protection. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above two statements?

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests the ability to distinguish two independently true constitutional facts from a genuine causal or explanatory relationship between them - a higher-order analytical skill beyond simple recall.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: When Does "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" Stop Applying to a Minister?
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 18 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

A Joint Parliamentary Committee reviewing the 130th Amendment Bill deferred adopting its draft report on July 18, amid disagreement over whether "removal" should be softened to "suspension."

Why for UPSC

Assertion-reasoning questions on constitutional amendments frequently test whether two true, topically related facts are mistakenly assumed to have a causal relationship - a distinction UPSC prizes highly.

Prelims summary

The 130th Amendment Bill proposes custody-based removal (30 days, 5+ year offences) as a new, earlier trigger distinct from Lily Thomas's conviction-based standard (2-year sentence) - the two are related but not causally connected.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.