NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Bihar government over the legal validity of continuing Deepak Prakash as Panchayati Raj Minister despite his not being elected within six months of his appointment, observing, "How are you retaining a minister beyond six months when he is not elected?"
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising two other judges was considering a plea seeking an early hearing of a petition challenging Prakash's reappointment as minister.
"It is a pure legal issue. How are you retaining a minister beyond six months when he is not elected?," the CJI asked.
Referring to Article 164 (4), the bench noted that a non-legislator can hold office only for six months.
The Petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh, told the court that on July 15, the state had sought time to file a counter but failed to do so. His lawyer, Sudeep Chandra, submitted that 7 months and 22 days have elapsed since Prakash first took the oath and he continues as minister.
When the court was informed that the matter involved the constitutional validity of the Minister's continuance, the Bench directed that the case be listed for hearing on Tuesday, August 4.
It is to be noted that Prakash was first appointed minister on November 20, 2025, in Nitish Kumar’s cabinet. Following a change in government and Samrat Choudhary becoming CM, he was reappointed on May 7, 2026.
The petitioner, Singh, claimed that the six-month provision is a one-time concession and the deadline to get elected was May 20, 2026.
The reappointment, the plea says, is in circumvention of constitutional safeguards and violates principles of representative democracy and electoral accountability. The plea seeks a declaration that the appointment is unconstitutional and a direction restraining Prakash from functioning as minister.
During the mentioning, Advocate Chandra submitted that the matter had been listed on the previous day but could not be reached. He pointed out that more than seven months had elapsed and that the Minister continued to hold office, requesting an early hearing of the constitutional challenge.
Appearing for the State of Bihar, counsel submitted that the tentative date reflected on the case status was 27 August 2026 and left the matter to the discretion of the Court.
Chandra further informed the Court that when the matter was listed on July 15, 2026, the State had sought time to file its counter affidavit. However, despite the passage of time, no counter affidavit had been filed.
Responding to the submission, the CJI observed that no further time would be granted for filing the counter affidavit and remarked, "Let them file it or not, we will hear them."
Counsel for the State sought time to obtain instructions, to which the CJI responded that it was for the State to explain the constitutional basis for the Minister's continuance.
The petition raises an important question concerning the scope of Article 164 (4) of the Constitution and whether a person who has not secured election to the State Legislature within the constitutionally prescribed period can continue to hold ministerial office. The petitioner relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in S R Chaudhuri versus State of Punjab, which emphasised that Article 164 (4) is an exceptional constitutional provision and cannot be used to circumvent democratic accountability.
