|
Bihar's Panchayati Raj Minister, Deepak Prakash, refrained from commenting on the ongoing Supreme Court hearing regarding his appointment and continuation in office, stating that all relevant facts will be placed directly before the Top court.
Speaking to ANI, the Minister emphasised the sub judice nature of the matter. "Since this matter is before the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to respond to it. All facts will be presented before the Supreme Court," Prakash said. Addressing recent speculation that sought to link the legal proceedings with talks of BJP MLC Devesh Kumar's recent resignation and other undisclosed matters, the Minister clarified that such connections are unfounded. "You are linking two things--actually, three things--together: the Supreme Court issue, the resignation, and a third matter. However, there is no logical basis or formal information to link these three things; therefore, they should not be viewed as connected," the Minister added. BJP MLC Devesh Kumar stepped down from the Bihar Legislative Council on Friday, in a move reportedly intended to pave the way for Deepak Prakash to enter the legislature and retain his ministerial position. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a petition challenging Prakash's role in the Bihar cabinet. On June 15, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Bihar Government, the Election Commission of India (ECI), and Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash on a plea challenging his reappointment and continuance in office despite not being a member of either the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. A bench of the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant and Justice V Mohan has sought responses on a petition filed by one Rakesh Kumar Singh. The petition submits that Deepak Prakash was first appointed as a minister on November 20, 2025, and, under Article 164(4) of the Constitution, was required to secure membership of the State Legislature within six months, failing which he would cease to hold office on May 20, 2026. It contends that instead of complying with this constitutional mandate, he was reappointed as a minister to effectively restart the six months. According to the petitioner, Article 164(4) provides only a one-time constitutional exception permitting a non-legislator to serve as a minister for a maximum period of six months. Any reappointment without first becoming a member of the Legislature, the plea argues, defeats the object of the provision and amounts to an unconstitutional extension of tenure beyond the permissible six-month limit. (ANI)
|
