New Delhi, July 14 -- The Joint Committee reviewing the Constitution amendment bill to remove arrested ministers is set to recommend a sunset provision- an automatic reversal clause-in the bill to allow reappointment of ministers for failure of the prosecution to proceed within a defined period, people familiar with the details said. The provision, the people added, asking not to be named, can be a safeguard in an otherwise controversial legislation. The panel, led by Bharatiya Janata Party lawmaker Aparajita Sarangi, is likely to make at least five key recommendations to the government. One of them is the automatic reversal clause and the people cited above said it is to ensure that the minister's removal will lapse upon their discharge, acquittal, or failure of the prosecution to proceed within a defined period. The clause will ensure that removal founded on an unproven allegation does not become a de facto permanent disability. In other words, if a minister is removed from office following his arrest but is later acquitted by the court then that person is eligible for re-appointment and does not permanently lose their position. Union home minister Amit Shah tabled the 130th Constitution amendment bill and two supplementary legislations for J&K and the other UTs in August last year. The Opposition objected to the bill and several parties refused to be a part of the joint committee to review the bill as a mark of protest. The Centre has indicated the legislation is high on its agenda for the upcoming monsoon session. The panel might recommend to the government define the term "serious criminal offences" and keep the provision for fast-track/special courts for trial of cases against high constitutional functionaries consistent. In a second change, the panel might ask the government to incorporate a separate "schedule of offences" punishable with imprisonment for a term of five years or more, in the three bills. A third change the panel is considering is replacing the terms "removal" and "cease to be a minister" with "suspension". The panel might recommend the government to define the term "serious criminal offences" and keep the provision for fast-track/special courts for trial of cases against high constitutional functionaries consistent....