The joint parliamentary panel deliberating the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill, 2025, which seeks to remove the Prime Minister, Union Ministers and Chief Ministers detained for 30 straight days on serious charges, on Friday decided to put the adoption of its draft report on hold. The panel cited the need to hold wider consultations on the matter, saying it was an “issue of national importance”.Sources aware of developments, however, indicated that the decision to put the adoption of the draft report on the Bill on hold was taken amid pressure from the Opposition members.The panel is likely to seek more time from Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to finalise its report on the Constitution Amendment Bill.BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi, who is the chairperson of the joint parliamentary panel, told mediapersons after a meeting that there were five recommendations before the committee, which were to be passed before adopting the draft report.“Once we started discussing the recommendations, it was unanimously felt by all members that the draft report should be kept on hold as there was a need to hold more deliberations and consultations with a wider range of stakeholders as it’s a national issue and unanimity has to be there,” she said.Sarangi said Opposition parties who refused to be a part of the joint panel were also kept in the loop.The adoption of the draft report on the Constitutional Amendment Bill was listed as the agenda of the joint committee for Friday (July 17).However, sources privy to details said several Opposition members like AIMIM chief and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi, NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule and Rajya Sabha member from YSR Congress S Niranjan Reddy raised objections to various clauses of the Bill during the meeting, which apparently led to a point where the committee “unanimously” decided to put the adoption of the draft report on hold.The sources further said several BJP members also objected to one of the key recommendations of the panel, which suggested that the terms “removal” or “cease to be a minister” might be substituted with “suspension”.Members across party lines are learnt to have questioned the recommendation on the grounds of whether a political leader can get any relief in terms of continuing as a minister if he or she is suspended or is on bail. The question was placed before the Home Ministry officials who had deposed before the panel on Friday.Sources said the responses of the Home Ministry officials did not satisfy several members. They were further asked what would be the fate of a chief minister who is out on bail if the Bill becomes a law.Members sought to know whether their bails would stand cancelled and whether they would cease to hold the constitutional office. Besides, if a CM is charged with inciting violence, then what would be his or her fate if the law comes into force, they asked.Some MPs are learnt to have cited several high-profile cases in which political leaders booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were denied relief by the courts.