- Court to clarify if six-month unelected tenure can restart.
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought an explanation from the Bihar government over the continued tenure of Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash, who has remained in office for more than six months in total without being elected to either House of the state legislature.
The court’s observations came while hearing a petition challenging Prakash’s reappointment as a minister, with the petitioner arguing that the constitutional six-month exemption for unelected ministers cannot be repeatedly invoked through successive appointments.
Supreme Court Calls It A Constitutional Question
A Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the case raises a clear question of constitutional interpretation and directed the Bihar government to justify the minister’s continuation in office.
As quoted by Lawbeat, the Chief Justice said, “This is a pure question of law. The State will have to explain how a minister is continuing for over six months without being elected.”
ALSO READ: BJP Protests Outside AAP Office Over Punjab Paper Leaks, Demands Probe. VIDEO
The Bench fixed the matter for further hearing on August 4 and indicated that it was not inclined to permit unnecessary adjournments, given the constitutional significance of the issue.
Petition Challenges Reappointment Under Article 164(4)
The petition questions Deepak Prakash’s reappointment under Article 164(4) of the Constitution, contending that the provision grants only a limited opportunity for a non-legislator to enter the legislature and cannot be repeatedly relied upon by resigning and rejoining the Council of Ministers without facing an election.
Prakash was first sworn in as Bihar’s Panchayati Raj Minister on November 20, 2025, under the Nitish Kumar-led government despite not being a member of either House of the Bihar Legislature. He remained in office for four months and 26 days before that government ended on April 15, 2026.
After a gap of 22 days, he was inducted once again into the Council of Ministers on May 7, 2026, under the newly formed government led by Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary, without having secured election to the legislature.
The petition, filed on May 30, argues that the reappointment amounts to “a fraud upon the Constitution”, asserting that Prakash has now spent more than six months in office in aggregate without becoming a legislator.
ALSO READ: ‘Gen Z Is Like Shivaji Maharaj’: Uddhav Says Mocked ‘Cockroaches’ Will Shape India’s Future
What Article 164(4) Provides
Article 164(4) of the Constitution permits a person who is not a member of the state legislature to be appointed as a minister, provided they secure election within six months.
The provision states: “A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister.”
Ordinarily, ministers appointed under this provision contest a by-election or are elected to the Legislative Council, where applicable, within the prescribed period.
Case Raises Fresh Questions on Constitutional Practice
The legal issue before the Supreme Court is unusual because Deepak Prakash did not complete a continuous six-month term during either stint as minister.
His first tenure lasted four months and 26 days, while his second term has so far continued for only a few months. However, when both tenures are combined, his total period in office without election exceeds six months.
The case is expected to determine whether the constitutional six-month grace period can effectively restart following the fall of one government and the formation of another, or whether cumulative service without election violates the intent of Article 164(4).
The issue also revives debate over the limits of constitutional conventions governing ministerial appointments. In the past, several political leaders—including Uddhav Thackeray, Tirath Singh Rawat and former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda—assumed office before becoming members of the legislature. However, each of those cases was resolved by securing legislative membership within the constitutional framework.
