All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) chief and Binnakandi MLA Badruddin Ajmal on Monday, 13 July sharply criticised a parliamentary panel's reported recommendation to suspend — rather than remove — a Prime Minister or Chief Minister who remains in judicial custody for 30 days, arguing that elected representatives would never legislate accountability measures that could be turned against themselves. Ajmal made the remarks in Guwahati on the sidelines of the ongoing assembly session.

Ajmal's Critique of the Suspension Proposal

Reacting to the reported recommendation, Ajmal questioned the intent behind the proposal, saying the political class fundamentally lacks the will to hold its own accountable. He argued that those who impose punishment would eventually face it themselves — a contradiction he said makes meaningful reform impossible.

He alleged that lawmakers across party lines shield one another and are collectively unwilling to enact stringent legal provisions against elected representatives. 'No one would punish anyone or frame laws against themselves — this is merely an exercise to fool the people,' he said. Notably, Ajmal offered no documentary evidence to support his broader claim that more than 65 per cent of MPs are currently facing criminal cases, though data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has consistently shown significant proportions of sitting MPs with declared criminal cases.

What the Parliamentary Panel Reportedly Proposed

The panel under scrutiny has reportedly suggested that constitutional functionaries — including the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers — should face suspension from office rather than automatic removal if they remain in judicial custody for 30 days or more. The distinction is significant: suspension preserves the possibility of reinstatement, while removal does not. Critics argue the softer provision dilutes accountability; supporters contend it prevents politically motivated prosecutions from destabilising elected governments.

The proposal has triggered debate across party lines, with no consensus yet on whether the suspension threshold is an adequate safeguard or a loophole.

Ajmal Targets BJP Over UCC

The AIUDF leader also trained his fire on the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) over the proposed implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), accusing the ruling party of deploying the issue as an electoral instrument rather than a genuine governance priority. He alleged that the UCC debate was being revived primarily with an eye on upcoming elections — particularly the Uttar Pradesh Assembly polls — and claimed the BJP was raising the issue to consolidate Hindu votes.

Ajmal said the BJP government would implement the UCC in states where it holds power, but predicted that 'nothing substantial would happen' at the national level. This comes amid active UCC implementation efforts in Uttarakhand, which became the first state to enact a UCC law, and ongoing discussions in other BJP-governed states.

Broader Context

Ajmal's remarks arrive at a moment of heightened political sensitivity around two intersecting debates: judicial accountability for sitting constitutional heads, and the UCC's electoral optics. The parliamentary panel's recommendations, once finalised, would require legislative action — a path that critics like Ajmal argue is structurally blocked by the self-interest of the very lawmakers who must approve it. With assembly elections in several states on the horizon, both issues are likely to remain flashpoints in the coming months.