Read the full transcript of former Solicitor General of India Harish Salve in conversation with Arnab Goswami, editor-in-chief of Republic Media Network, August 22, 2025.
INTRODUCTION
ARNAB GOSWAMI: With us this evening is the most distinguished Harish Salve. I would consider him one of India’s biggest legal eagles and India’s top jurist. Harish Salve, big controversy here. We have right now in parliament and outside the government has suddenly brought in the Constitution 130th Amendment Bill which says any central or state minister including Chief Minister or Prime Minister can be removed if they face allegations of corruption or serious offenses and are detained for at least 30 days. You think this constitutional amendment can be misused is dangerous?
The Need for Constitutional Values
HARISH SALVE: I’m appalled that we need such a constitutional amendment. If you go back to even recent times, since nowadays people are allergic to history, especially if you go back to 1975. So let’s go to more recent history. If you go back to when was it? 1994, 95, 96. The Jain Hawala Diaries.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Yeah.
HARISH SALVE: And I must confess I was appearing for some of the accused. The cases were thrown out at framing of charges stage because it was all based on a diary. And we all know even basic law is not a diary, is hearsay and without any corroborative evidence is a piece of paper. Yet people were charged. Nobody was arrested.
If you remember, Mr. Advani said “this case is frivolous as ever. The day I’m resigning now” and he left. I think even left parliament or leader of the opposition. Some person, he says “I will come back the day my name is clear.” Everybody did that. Correct. Was that destructive of the basic structure of the constitution?
Move to 2000 when I was Solicitor General of India and there was a problem. Lalu Yadav had been arrested. If you remember Mr. Lalu Yadav, he resigned. And yet at that time the CBI, I was being instructed by the CBI to appear in his bail whenever he sought bail.
And Arnab, I remember seeing a photograph, long distance lens photograph. His wife was chief minister. He was sitting in the jailer’s chair with his feet on the table with a lot of people around him. All the ministers were around him. And they showed me a photograph of all the Lal Batti cars parked outside the jail. That was I thought an abuse of democracy. Because if you’re not a chief minister doesn’t mean you put somebody else in the office and you run it from jail.
The Decline in Democratic Values
What we have now seen therefore is a sharp decline in values from the day people said “if there is a charge against me, I will first clear the charge” to days where people say “so what if I’m in jail? In my own subjective opinion doesn’t matter if the Supreme Court has not granted me bail, but in my own subjective opinion, I’m innocent. Therefore, why should I leave office?”
So it was the Constitution never envisaged, and this is symbolic. According to me, a more fundamental shift in the mindset. The Constitution regards public office as a sacred trust, a duty to serve the people. The criticism appears to be more of an assertion of an entitlement. “I have earned this office. You can’t take it away from me only because I am arrested.” It’s like taking away somebody’s property only because he’s arrested.
So I think we need to discuss and reassert what are our basic constitutional values? How are we going to live? I mean, we’ve seen decline in constitutional values all over the world, so I’m not blaming Indian alone. Across the Atlantic, we all know what’s going on every day. So we have in India to rediscover where we are and to rediscover what basic values we must live by. Otherwise, as we always say, democracy is a fragile virtue and it’s always work in progress. You allow these values to take hold, we will lose our democracy.
Addressing the Presumption of Innocence Argument
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Sir, how do we tackle the basic counter argument that this Constitution amendment removes the presumption of innocence argument? You know that a person is presumed innocent till convicted, so you are arrested and put in jail despite you being convicted.
HARISH SALVE: Right. So let me, as a lawyer, explain to you what this argument is about. Somebody else asked me “this violates natural justice, and it is opposed to the presumption of innocence.” Natural justice is a right to be heard. You cannot, if you are arrested within the constitution provides, within 24 hours, you will be before a magistrate. So your first step of judicial relief, then the high courts and then the Supreme Court.
And what we have is a system in which you lose your liberty only when it is under judicial supervision. Refusal of grant of bail. That doesn’t run counter to the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is not that you’re presumed to be innocent till the last day that you’re convicted. The presumption of innocence is the underlying basis on which trials are conducted. The prosecution must establish your guilt. It is not that you have to establish your innocence.
That is why some laws have tilted this. I am a staunch critic of the PMLA law, which has tilted this. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court upheld it. Hopefully, they will have second thoughts about it. But apart from those special laws, the presumption of innocence still holds because it’s the prosecution which has to prove your guilt. Even when you’re arrested, the government has, the prosecution has to show that there is a good reason to keep you in custody.
The Kejriwal Case and Double Standards
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Sir, so Kejriwal was in office despite being in jail for nine months.
According to this, he would have been out in a month.
HARISH SALVE: Yes, he would have had to. I don’t know whether we, I mean the fact that we need such a Constitution amendment itself makes me hang my head in shame.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Can’t it become an incentive for arrest? If I say I want to target my political rival, I will before he cheated, put him in jail on the pretext of investigation. Sir, counter argument. Do you know how independent the lower courts are? It’s not difficult to get someone arrested.
HARISH SALVE: Now let’s come to the real topic which nobody wants to talk about. Where a common man is arrested, where Arnab Goswami is thrown in jail, there is nobody who cares. But if a politician is arrested, “Oh my God, the system has collapsed.”
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Correct.
HARISH SALVE: So, and who has made these laws under which all this is happening? It’s these very people who are screaming murder today. So what if today a debate is raised, and when should a person be arrested? A person, not a politician. Why should an Indian lose his most sacred right? The right to liberty. The lowest of the low, a businessman, a journalist, a professional, whoever is being arrested, a worker. Why should he lose his independence? Why should we not bring back Krishna’s “bail, not jail” adage back? You know how we have to struggle to get you bail, whereas it should have been granted for the asking. Who corrupted the system? It’s those people who are today screaming the loudest about this Constitution amendment.
So let us not mix our different issues. If you tell me there is a problem in the courts today, I agree with you wholeheartedly. You’ve been a victim of that.
Universal Application of the Law
ARNAB GOSWAMI: So presumably this will also apply to Rahul Gandhi. If he’s arrested tomorrow in the National Herald case, for example, then will he have to resign as leader of the opposition?
HARISH SALVE: Yes, if he is arrested. If it goes to a court, he will argue “this arrest is mala fide. This arrest is motivated.” In your case, we did argue. We did succeed. The court gave you bail. I can say 30 days is too little. Indian courts take too long. Okay. The joint committee may say not 30 days, 45 days, 60 days. Or if the case is pending in Supreme Court till such time as the bail case is pending in the Supreme Court. That’s fine tuning. In principle, can you say “I know I have been denied bail. I will be in jail till I’m convicted”?
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Well, I mean you know there are a lot of our MPs who have criminal cases against them who are getting elected.
HARISH SALVE: They won’t be affected by this. They are not in office. It’s not that you’re disqualified. Another somebody else is confusing disqualification. This is not a disqualification. You can be under trial. You can continue to be a member of parliament. If elections are called, you contest the elections.
Constitutional Validity and Court Challenges
ARNAB GOSWAMI: You think it’ll be upheld by the courts if it goes for challenge?
HARISH SALVE: I don’t see on what ground it can be challenged.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Everything goes to the courts today.
HARISH SALVE: If constitution is being amended to provide a check and a safeguard, what will the Supreme Court say? That we as courts have completely failed in rigorously implementing the law of bail, and that is why people are wrongly kept in jail, so we strike down a constitution amendment? I can understand a criticism saying nowadays the courts are very, very miserly in granting bail. That’s a separate criticism. That’s a separate discussion you must have.
The PMLA Challenge
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Under PMLA doesn’t it take longer to get bail? Naturally they are worried because of the misuse of the ED. Because apparently under PMLA it is very difficult to get bail below 30 days.
HARISH SALVE: Is ED only misused when a politician goes to jail? Is ED not misused when a businessman goes to jail?
ARNAB GOSWAMI: But politicians are more vulnerable to rivalries from other parties.
HARISH SALVE: So are we having a separate standard? What about journalists being sent to jail for political rivalries? So if we are having a debate on why the Indian judiciary is not functioning the way it should, I am all for it. Why should we not repair the law in which citizens are not unnecessarily incarcerated? I am all for that discussion.
But to say that a separate standard must be applied for politicians while common man goes to jail doesn’t matter. Can you continue as managing director, Chairman of a big company if you’re in jail? Can you continue as a civil servant if you’re in jail? But a lawyer say “I will practice from jail. Please give me VC facilities. I’ll argue for myself from my client.”
Prime Ministerial Immunity and Police Powers
ARNAB GOSWAMI: You really think a Prime Minister will come under this? Because you think a Prime Minister will? Apparently you can’t file an FIR against the Prime Minister. Some members of parliament said that a police inspector now has the power to arraign the Prime Minister of the country.
HARISH SALVE: Police always had this power.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: You always had, not a Prime Minister.
HARISH SALVE: Our Prime Minister today, can I file an FIR against the Prime Minister?
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Can I file an FIR against the Prime Minister?
HARISH SALVE: You won’t file an FIR against Prime Minister. You file an FIR against a person who has allegedly committed an offense. And there is no immunity even if he’s a Prime Minister. Immunity is from acts in office. If a Prime Minister, and that is why prevention of corruption act when you say in the discharge of your functions you’ve done something, you need to get sanctions etc. Even a Prime Minister can be prosecuted.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Correct.
HARISH SALVE: And today if there is allegation of murder against the prime minister, of course you can. If the policeman going to arrest? Yes. There are checks and safeguards within procedural systems to make sure it’s not used as engine of harassment.
Moral Responsibility vs Constitutional Mandate
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Last question. I know you are very busy but last question. If you know there are these theories of moral responsibility. Whereas people if they want to resign, that is their moral responsibility. Issues of personal morality of a public representative are more important than the proposed constitution amendment. Let it be the moral responsibility of Kejriwal to resign. Let it be the moral responsibility of Manish Sisodia, Satyendar Jain to resign. Why force them?
HARISH SALVE: Why then apply the rule to convictions also? A convicted criminal, why should he be disqualified? Let it be his personal morality. Let him work out of private life. The point is if a constitution, if you are going to work a constitution in which a man sitting in jail who has been refused bail by the highest court of the country says “I will run the office of Chief Minister,” what public confidence can you have?
Did the constitution ever envisage that a man sitting in jail would enjoy high public office? Once again, now I come back to this. What is high public office? Is it a duty?
Defining Serious Offenses
ARNAB GOSWAMI: But what is the seriousness of it? What if I were to ask you, good counter question, Harish Salve. But if I were to ask you as a citizen, can Harish Salve tell me what defines a serious offense? You’ve left this ambiguous. You say allegations of serious offenses.
HARISH SALVE: No, no, no, no. Well defined in law. Well defined.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Well defined?
HARISH SALVE: Example. Yes. Five years or more, easily understood norm. For example, if you apply for a visa for the United Kingdom, I know Sanjay Gandhi applied for a visa for the United Kingdom. Flat rule. If you’ve been convicted of an offense five years or more, no visa.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Convicted.
HARISH SALVE: So.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: But convicted.
HARISH SALVE: Yeah.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Not accused. No, no, that’s not charged.
HARISH SALVE: We are talking of serious. Sorry. We’re talking about definition of a serious offense. A serious offense is defined as one which is a punishment of five years or more.
Today you are not being disqualified. You’re being said till such time as you are in custody. In the custody exchange, 30 days or more, you will step aside from office. If you are released from custody, you can come back into office. You are not disqualified.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Viewers.
HARISH SALVE: And this will be after prima facie. The highest court has said there is a case against you. So you have by definition a person against whom there is a case which deserves his continuance in custody as seen by the courts of the land and not just the magistrate of the lowest court. That’s why it says 30 days.
Now there can be an argument why 30 is too little. Make it 45, make it 60. That’s a matter of working out the details of the law. But in principle, can you. It appalls me that people say, “So what if he is in jail? It could be that there is a false case against him.” Therefore. That’s not what we said in 1991. Why should we say it now?
Closing Remarks and Appreciation
ARNAB GOSWAMI: Well, I’ve always put this question viewers, and that’s the number. Do you agree with Harish Salve’s assessment when he supports the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill 2025? Also putting this entire video on digital so that you can have a live polling on it. I will send Mr. Salve the responses with my regards.
It’s such a pleasure to talk to you, sir. Every time I talk to you, it’s mentally stimulating for us and it’s one for all people watching the program tonight. The most intellectually stimulating environment is when Harish Salve is arguing before the Supreme Court.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are the greats of our jurisprudence. Raj Ram Jethmalani, Harish Salve, Soli Sorabjee. When they argued, when they argue in the courts, people just come there to watch. And it’s our pleasure and privilege to be talking to such a legend. Thank you very much, Harish Salve.
HARISH SALVE: Thank you.
Related Posts
