SC to examine Bihar Minister continuing beyond six months without being elected
Advertisement
New Delhi, July 30 : The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the Bihar government will have to explain how Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash has continued in office for more than six months without becoming a member of either House of the state legislature.
Mentioning the matter before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, the petitioner's counsel submitted that more than six months had elapsed and Deepak Prakash continued to hold ministerial office despite not being elected to the Bihar Assembly or the Legislative Council.
"My Lord, it is now over six months and he continues as a minister," the counsel said while seeking an early hearing.
The counsel appearing for the Bihar government informed the CJI Kant-led Bench that the matter was already listed for hearing on August 27 and left the question of preponing the hearing to the discretion of the apex court.
CJI Kant observed that the matter involves a pure question of law and said the state government would have to explain the constitutional basis for allowing a person who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council to continue as a minister beyond six months.
The Supreme Court indicated that it would take up the plea for hearing on Tuesday.
The petition concerns the constitutional validity of Deepak Prakash's continuance as Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister despite not being a member of either House of the state legislature.
Earlier, the top court had issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist and whistleblower Rakesh Kumar Singh challenging Deepak Prakash's reappointment as Minister after the formation of the new government in Bihar.
The plea raises an important constitutional question relating to Article 164(4) of the Constitution, which permits a non-legislator to serve as a minister for a maximum period of six months, within which the person must become a member of the legislature.
According to the petition, Deepak Prakash was first inducted into the Bihar Cabinet on November 20, 2025, despite not being a member of either House of the state legislature.
Following the resignation of then Chief Minister Nitish Kumar on April 15, the Council of Ministers ceased to exist. Deepak Prakash was subsequently reappointed as Panchayati Raj Minister on May 7 in the newly constituted government headed by Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary, even though he had still not secured membership of either House.
The petitioner has contended that the reappointment amounts to a colourable exercise of constitutional power intended to indirectly extend the six-month period available to a non-legislator minister under Article 164(4).
Relying on the Supreme Court's 2001 judgment in S.R. Chaudhuri versus State of Punjab, the plea argues that the constitutional exception under Article 164(4) is a one-time privilege and cannot be repeatedly invoked through resignation, change of ministry, Cabinet reshuffles or reappointment.
The PIL seeks a declaration that Deepak Prakash's reappointment is unconstitutional and void and also seeks issuance of a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority under which he continues to hold ministerial office.
Mentioning the matter before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, the petitioner's counsel submitted that more than six months had elapsed and Deepak Prakash continued to hold ministerial office despite not being elected to the Bihar Assembly or the Legislative Council.
"My Lord, it is now over six months and he continues as a minister," the counsel said while seeking an early hearing.
The counsel appearing for the Bihar government informed the CJI Kant-led Bench that the matter was already listed for hearing on August 27 and left the question of preponing the hearing to the discretion of the apex court.
CJI Kant observed that the matter involves a pure question of law and said the state government would have to explain the constitutional basis for allowing a person who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council to continue as a minister beyond six months.
The Supreme Court indicated that it would take up the plea for hearing on Tuesday.
The petition concerns the constitutional validity of Deepak Prakash's continuance as Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister despite not being a member of either House of the state legislature.
Earlier, the top court had issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist and whistleblower Rakesh Kumar Singh challenging Deepak Prakash's reappointment as Minister after the formation of the new government in Bihar.
The plea raises an important constitutional question relating to Article 164(4) of the Constitution, which permits a non-legislator to serve as a minister for a maximum period of six months, within which the person must become a member of the legislature.
According to the petition, Deepak Prakash was first inducted into the Bihar Cabinet on November 20, 2025, despite not being a member of either House of the state legislature.
Following the resignation of then Chief Minister Nitish Kumar on April 15, the Council of Ministers ceased to exist. Deepak Prakash was subsequently reappointed as Panchayati Raj Minister on May 7 in the newly constituted government headed by Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary, even though he had still not secured membership of either House.
The petitioner has contended that the reappointment amounts to a colourable exercise of constitutional power intended to indirectly extend the six-month period available to a non-legislator minister under Article 164(4).
Relying on the Supreme Court's 2001 judgment in S.R. Chaudhuri versus State of Punjab, the plea argues that the constitutional exception under Article 164(4) is a one-time privilege and cannot be repeatedly invoked through resignation, change of ministry, Cabinet reshuffles or reappointment.
The PIL seeks a declaration that Deepak Prakash's reappointment is unconstitutional and void and also seeks issuance of a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority under which he continues to hold ministerial office.
Advertisement
Note: The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the ap7am team.