![\"Stakeholders:](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-132339748,imgsize-1041361,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/untitled-design-15.jpg\" "\\"File")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: As a key parliamentary committee gets down to adopting recommendations on a contentious anti-corruption bill, its draft report has acknowledged that an “overwhelming majority of stakeholders” have found the clause of removing the PM, CMs or ministers from office if they are in custody for 30 consecutive days “constitutionally problematic” as it is delinked from any judicial outcome of culpability.One of the recommendations made in the draft report is that the bill carry a sunset or an automatic reversal clause that states the barring of the person from holding office will lapse upon his discharge or if the prosecution fails to proceed with the case within a defined period, sources said. This will ensure the removal based on an unproven allegation does not turn into a de facto permanent disentitlement, they said.The draft report is open to changes backed by a majority of panel members. Once adopted, it will be tabled in Lok Sabha, raising the possibility of govt seeking its passage in Parliament to make it into a law.Despite strong objections to the 30-day arrest trigger, the draft report’s recommendations do not substantially amend the proposal, instead calling for using the word “suspension” in place of “removal” from office to avoid stigma or presumption of guilt.Sources said the home ministry, in its reply, has objected to the term “suspension”, arguing that it implies a transient state where a person retains the legal title, rank and status of office while being barred from discharging their duties.The draft report says the most commonly proposed alternative to the 30-day custody trigger was shifting the yardstick to the stage of framing of charges.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n