Can any sane person applaud “swiftness” of passage of legislations without completing process of three readings of the Bills under Article 107?

Disregarding any pretense of pre-legislative Consultation, and feigning ignorance about Pre-legislative Consultation Policy, 2014, which was formulated by the Committee of Secretaries under the Chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary on January 10, 2014, on July 22, Bihar Assembly passed 13 key Bills, including legislation on prison reforms, private universities, urban development, ease of doing business, crime control, panchayat governance and the establishment of new specialised universities without meaning full discussion and deliberation. The Bills were not referred to multi-party select committees. The assembly did not incorporate the amendments  in the bill. These Bills are:

1. Bihar Urban Development Bill 2026
2. Bihar Private University (Amendment) Bill 2026 in the name of improving access to quality education, reducing migration of students to other states, retaining educational spending within Bihar and to create more academic opportunities for youth.
3. Bihar Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Repeal) Bill 2026
4. Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Bill 2026, , for stricter penalties for undervaluation of property during registration; 
5. Registration (Bihar Amendment) Bill 2026
6. Bihar Ease of Doing Business Bill 2026
7. Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Bill 2026
8. Bihar Prison and Correctional Services Bill 2026
9. Bihar Crime Control (Amendment) Bill 2026
10. Bihar Specific University Bill 2026
11. Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science University Bill 2026
12. Bihar Engineering University (Amendment) Bill 2026
13. Shaheed Jubba Sahni Architecture and Civil Engineering University Bill 2026.

Earlier, on July 21, the passing of seven Bills in the Assembly within one hour showed the "swift" work of the government without any legislative debate.  

These Bills: 1. Bihar Gambling (Prohibition) Bill, 2026, 

2. Bihar Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2026,  

3. Bihar Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) (Repeal) Bill, 2026, 

4. Bihar Land Mutation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, 

5. Bihar Medical (Amendment) Bill, 2026, 

6. Bihar Nurses Registration (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and 

7. Bihar Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) (Amendment) Bill, 2026.

These Bills were passed hurriedly when the opposition parties had walked out in protest against the lathi charge on students and youth. 

The passage of these Bills with such exemplary swiftness is a lesson for all the present and future legislators. It shows how the legislators were not give sufficient time to prepare for the deliberation on Bills. Can any sane person applaud such “swiftness” of government’s work?

A day may come when High Court or Supreme Court will declare them ultra vires on the ground that these bills were passed without due diligence.   

The Bills Originating in the legislative council involves three readings. 

First Reading: The legislative process starts with the introduction of the Bill in either the legislative assembly or the legislative council with permission .It is necessary to ask for leave to introduce the Bill. IIf leave is granted by the House, the Bill is introduced. This constitutes the First Reading of the Bill. After a Bill has been introduced, it is published in the Official Gazette as soon as possible. Subsequent to introduction of the Bills, in the council or the assembly, the same may be referred to the legislative committees by the presiding officer of the legislature for examination and report. 

Second Reading: The Second Reading consists of consideration of the Bill which is in two stages. The first stage consists of a discussion on the Bill as a whole when only the principles of the Bill and its provisions are discussed in general. The presiding officer can refer the Bill to a Select Committee.  In the case of a Bill having been referred to a Select/Joint Committee, the Committee considers the Bill clause-
by-clause just as the House does. Amendments can be moved to the various clauses by members of the Committee. The Committee can also take evidence of associations, public bodies or experts who are interested in the measures. After the Bill has thus been considered, the Committee submits its report to the House which considers the Bill as reported on by the Committee. 

The second stage of the Second Reading consists of a clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as introduced or as reported by Select/ Joint Committee. Discussion takes place on each clause of the Bill and amendments to clauses can be moved at this stage.  After the clauses, the schedules, if any, the Enacting Formula, Long Title and Short Title of the Bill have been adopted by the House, the Second Reading is deemed to be over.

Third Reading: Thereafter, the Member-in-charge can move that the Bill (or the Bill, as amended) be passed. This stage is known as the Third Reading of the Bill. At this stage debate is confined to arguments either in support of the Bill or for its rejection, without referring to the details thereof further than is absolutely necessary. Only formal, verbal or consequential amendments are allowed at this stage. When passing an ordinary Bill, a simple majority of the Members present and voting is sufficient.

The record of the proceedings of the Bihar legislature can reveal how most of the Bills passed did not complete the process of the three readings of the Bills.   A careful reading of the constitution and the rules of the house demonstrates that Bills passed without discussion cannot be deemed constitutional. Article 107 of the Constitution states that no Bill shall be deemed to have been passed unless both Houses have agreed to it. The word “agreed” has been presumably used with intent. There cannot be agreement to a proposal without discussion. The word "agreement" presupposes discussion. The term "agreed" means mutual assent. It reflects the fundamental "meeting of the minds". Can there be mutual assent without discussion in the legislature? 

P.D.T. Acharya is former secretary general of the Lok Sabha says, "Experience shows that the government immensely benefits from this detailed scrutiny. A much-refined Bill results in a better law and less litigation. The people need better laws, and parliament owes it to them. A Bill introduced in the midst of din and passed within a few minutes. It is passed by a voice vote of the treasury benches. This is such a ridiculously mechanical exercise that everyone, including those who voted, end up losing all respect for the sanctity of lawmaking. Laws are made without the lawmakers knowing much about what laws they have made. Lawmaking is too serious a business to be cavalierly handled by the uninitiated, who want quick passage without scrutiny. This is certainly going to affect citizens because an unscrutinised Bill may retain harmful provisions. No democratic parliament in the world passes Bills without detailed discussion and scrutiny. If the house is not in order, no business can be transacted until order is restored. It is the responsibility of the government of the day to create conditions conducive to the smooth running of the House." He added: what Article 107 of the Constitution makes clear is that Bills shall be deemed to have been passed only when both Houses discuss them and then agree to them. The makers of the constitution could have used the word “passed” in place of “agreed”. The word “passed” appropriately refers to the act of passing, namely, the voting etc. But they wanted both houses to fully discuss legislative proposals before agreeing to them. Hence the word “agreed”. Discussion is implied in this word.

The Rules for passing Bills have been framed under this Article 107. If legislature passes a Bill without discussion and scrutiny, it may end up as a bad law which would be detrimental to citizens. The passing of Bills without discussion in legislature constitutes a violation of Article 107 and the rules of the house, and are fit case for judicial intervention.

The total disregard for pre-legislative consultation in their drafting, make these Bills illegitimate. Aren't the passage of these Bills, case laws to study, what legislature should not do pass Bills? 

Patna High Court Advocates join the nation to express solidarity with students and youth protesting at Jantar Mantar, condemn police assault

Advocates of Patna High Court gathered at Gate No. 4 amidst heavy police presence to express their solidarity with the fast and peaceful demonstration by students and youth at New Delhi's Jantar Mantar who were attacked by the police in the heart of the national capital. The advocates termed the police attack as an attack on the fundamental right to speech and public protest which is recognised under Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India i.e., the fundamental rights to free speech and expression, and to assemble peacefully. Significantly, the violent assault on students and youth was ordered by the Union Executive in the proximity of Parliament. The monsoon session of the Parliament is underway since July 20, 2026. Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha witnessed uproar and sloganeering with Opposition demanding discussions on the NEET paper ‘leak’ issue and the police crackdown. Ahead of the day’s parliament session, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi along with some Opposition MPs had met Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla demanding a discussion in the Lok Sabha on the “brutality unleashed” on students and the government’s “complete lack of accountability” for the nation-wide examination disaster. Photo:Yogesh Chandra Verma, Octogenarian senior advocate and President, Advocates Association, the oldest and largest organisation of Bihar protesting against the assault on the students and youth at Jantar Mantar in the national capital.          

The advocates included octogenarian Yogesh Chandra Verma, senior  advocate and President, Advocates Association and veteran lawyers like Dr. S.S.P. Yadav, Ram Jiban Prasad Singh, Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Dr. Raja Ram Rai, Angad Kumar Singh, Uday Pratap Singh, Manilal Mahto, Bijendra Singh, Ashok Kumar, Maheshwar Prasad Das, Ravi Shankar, Arjun Prasad, Vishwa Ranjan Chaudhary, Ashok Sinha, P.K Sharma, Amarendra Sinha, Shambhu Sharan, Dr. Gopal Krishna and Sanjana Srivastava. The advocates condemned police assault on the students and youth. The noted senior trade union leader and General Secretary of AITUC also joined the protest. 

The advocates joined the nation to express the their support with the protesters at Jantar Mantar. The protest was organised by All India Lawyers Union (AILU), Patna High Court, Indian Association of Lawyers (IAL), Bihar Chapter, and All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ). The advocates pointed out that the Supreme Court has held in Kedarnath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962) that the right to hold public meetings or have processions flows from the right to freedom of assembly.   

On July 22, 2026, Supreme Court refused to initiate suo motu proceedings to take cognisance of alleged police excesses during the July 20 crackdown on student protesters in the national capital. When a lawyer submitted that there was videographic evidence of police brutality against the protesters, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant orally declined to examine the videos, saying that the court’s time should not be “wasted”. He was quoted as saying, "“We are not interested in videos. We don’t have time to watch them,” the Chief Justice orally remarked, declining to take cognisance of alleged videographic evidence of police violence on student protestors." The protesting students are seeking the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, the Union Education Minister  over exam paper leaks. Advocate Narendra Mishra had mentioned the matter of the students who are raising important issues such as proper conduct of the NEET exam, and reforms in the National Testing Agency with nation-wide support. 

Like several other state assemblies across the country, Bihar state assembly also witnessed bitter protest against examination disaster during its Monsoon session, which is underway. The student protest near Gandhi Maidan, about three km away from the Governor’s residence faced tear gas shells, used water cannons and baton-charged from the Bihar Police on July 22, 2026 to stop them from a ‘Lok Bhavan March’, who were demanding resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, the Union Education Minister over the NEET paper leak disaster.

Notably, on July 21, the Delhi High Court had declined to urgently hear a similar matter, saying, "Don't drag the Court into this." But the Delhi High Court's 's Division bench of bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia heard the matter on July 22 an issued notice.  Appearing for the petitioners, the senior counsels submitted before the Court that the peaceful protest has been underway for 20 days without disturbing peace. 

The petition was heard after the Court permitted urgent mentioning of the petition. The petition submitted that the incident had “shocked the conscience of the entire nation”. N. Hariharan, senior advocate, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior advocate and Vikas Singh, aenior advocate appeared for the petitioners. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) represented the Delhi Police and the Union Government. It was submitted that the demonstrators were exercising their constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21. The disproportionate use of the force by the police was unimaginable. The students were beaten with lathis fitted with nails and subjected to pellets and electric batons, resulting in injuries to more than 90 protesters. There was no proclamation was issued prohibiting the assembly. The police had not warned the protesters to disperse before resorting to force. The senior counsels sought preservation of all material connected with the incident, including CCTV footage, PCR logs, videography and orders authorising the use of tear gas and batons and prayed to the Court to constitute a Special Investigation Team or appoint an independent agency to probe the allegations because the Delhi Police could not investigate accusations against its own personnel. The senior counsel submitted: “There are policemen who were molesting women, beating them on private parts. It is so ghastly... At least identifiable policemen, against them FIRs should be there. It is all in videos. An enquiry be made into the entire incident”. 

Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior advocate appearing for another PIL submitted that his team had verified nearly 130 videos relating to the incident. He alleged that several persons seen using force were neither in police uniform nor wearing identification badges. He pointed out that one of the videos, showed Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman protester. “Videos show Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman who was doing nothing. Let's not be scared to name our thugs in uniform. He slaps her across the face. They were in charge to protect us”. 

 

Citing Supreme Court's 252-page long judgment dated February 23, 2012 in Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt.4/5.06.2011 vs. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 1, Sankaranarayanan submitted that the authorities had failed to comply with the prescribed protocol for dispersing crowds. The protocol requires prior announcement. The use of tear gas is a measure of last resort as per the protocol. 

In the Ram Lila Maidan case, the Supreme Court held that "From the facts and circumstances that emerge from the record before this Court, it is evident that it was not a case of emergency. The police have failed to establish that a situation had arisen where there was imminent need to intervene, having regard to the sensitivity and perniciously perilous consequences that could have resulted, if such harsh measures had not been taken forthwith."  The Court observed: "Freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful  agitation are the basic features  of a democratic system.  The people of a democratic country like ours have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of the Government or even to express their resentment over the actions of the government on any subject of social or national importance.  The Government has to respect, and in fact, encourage exercise of such rights.  It is the abundant duty of the State to aid the exercise of right to freedom of speech as understood in its comprehensive sense and not to throttle or frustrate exercise of such rights by exercising  its executive or legislative  powers and passing orders or taking action in that direction in the name of reasonable restrictions”. The Court's direction reads: "a. Take disciplinary action against all the erring police officers/personnel who have indulged in brick-batting, have resorted to lathi charge and excessive use of tear gas shells upon the crowd, have exceeded their authority or have acted in a manner not permissible under the prescribed procedures, rules or the standing orders and their actions have an element of criminality. This action shall be taken against the officer/personnel irrespective of what ranks they hold in the hierarchy of police." The instant case creates a compelling logic for disciplinary action as well. 

Vikas Singh, the senior counsel submitted that the march to Parliament had been publicly announced in advance and that the authorities were aware that the gathering would swell on July 20. The protest involved students, doctors, lawyers and persons from different walks of life. Singh maintained that there was nothing on record to suggest that the gathering constituted an unlawful assembly. 

Singh referred to Section 149 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to submit that officers dispersing assemblies are required to use “as little force, and do as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly”. 

Raju, the ASG who represented the Delhi Police and the Union Government submitted that the petitioners had failed to avail alternative remedies, including approaching a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. He submitted that prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNS had been promulgated. He questioned the maintainability of the PILs. Raju argued that individuals claiming to have been assaulted should pursue appropriate legal remedies instead of invoking the public interest jurisdiction of the Court. 

Delhi High Court asked: “Is it a case of some isolated incidents? Perhaps not. If it was an unlawful assembly, as you say, there is law on how to deal with it. If these issues are raised in a PIL, how can you say every individual should lodge an FIR?”. 

Drawing the Supreme Court's19-page long decision dated August 12, 2016 in Anita Thakur vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2016) 15 SCC 525, the Court observed that remedies for alleged violations of fundamental rights arising from police action could also be pursued under public law. The Court directed preservation of “the relevant record in relation to the incident as mentioned in the writ petitions, including CCTV footage and videography, if any”, in accordance with the standard operating procedures issued by the Delhi Police and the Union Government. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 11. 

In Anita Thakur's case, the Court observed: "When we examine the present matter in the aforesaid conspectus, we find that initially it was the petitioners/ protestors who took the law into their hands by turning their peaceful agitation into a violent one and in the process becoming unruly and pelting stones at the police. On the other hand, even the police personnel continued the use of force beyond limits after they had controlled the mob. In the process, they continued their lathi charge. They continued to beat up all the three petitioners even after overpowering them. They had virtually apprehended these petitioners making them immobile. However, their attack on these petitioners continued even thereafter when it was not at all needed. As far as injuries suffered by these petitioners are concerned, such a situation could clearly be avoided. It is apparent that to that extent, respondents misused their power. To that extent, fundamental right of the petitioners, due to police excess, has been violated. In such circumstances, in exercise of its power under Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court can award compensation to the petitioners." 

The Court drew on its decisions in Saheli, A Women's Resources Center, Through Ms. Nalini Bhanot & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters & Ors.(1990) 1 SCC 422; Joginder Kaur vs. The Punjab State & Ors.(1969) ACJ 28; The State of Rajasthan vs. Mst. Vidhywati & Anr.(1962) Supp 2 SCR 989; and Smt. Nilabati Behera@ Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) vs. State of Orissa & Ors.(1993) 2 SCC 746. 

The judgement in Anita Thakur's case concluded: "The ratio of these precedents can be explained thus: First, it is clear that a violation of fundamental rights due to police misconduct can give rise to a liability under public law, apart from criminal and tort law. Secondly, that pecuniary compensation can be awarded for such a violation of fundamental rights. Thirdly, it is the State that is held liable and, therefore, the compensation is borne by the State and not the individual police officers found guilty of misconduct. Fourthly, this Court has held that the standard of proof required for proving police misconduct such as brutality, torture and custodial violence and for holding the State accountable for the same, is high. It is only for patent and incontrovertible violation of fundamental rights that such remedy can be made available. Fifthly, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to cases of fundamental rights violation and hence cannot be used as a defence in public law. 15. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the present case and finding that even the petitioners are to be blamed to some extent, as pointed out above, the only relief we grant is to award compensation of ₹2,00,000 (rupees two lakhs only) to petitioner No.1 and ₹1,00,000 (rupees one lakh only) each to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, which shall be paid to these petitioners within a period of two months." This judgement shows that Court holds the State is liable when it finds the police guilty of misconduct like brutality and torture.   

In the case of violence at Jantar Mantar, besides the violence by police, there were instances, wherein, some individuals with beard masqueraded as police and numerous masked faceless mercenaries resorted to violence, brutality and torture against the students and youth.  

LiveLaw has reported that Delhi Police has registered at least nine FIRs in connection with the alleged “violence, stone-pelting and vandalism” during the march. The FIRs have been lodged at police stations including Parliament Street, Barakhamba Road and Connaught Place. The charges include rioting, assaulting public servants on duty, damaging government and private property, and attempting to murder a Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel.

On July 21, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, MP and Akhilesh Yadav, Samajwadi Party chief  were detained after leading a sit-in protest outside Lok Kalyan Marg, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s residence, demanding his resignation. Besixdes these leaders, Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha and several senior MPs reached the site around 3.30 pm and staged a dharna, accusing the government of shielding those responsible for the alleged NEET paper leak and ordering police action against protesting students. Supriya Sule, the NCP (SP) leader joined the demonstration later. The Union government sent Dr. Jitendra Singh, Minister of State in the PMO to hold talks with Rahul Gandhi. Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan was also with the minister but the discussions failed to break the deadlock because of the demand for the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, the Union Education Minister. The leaders demands included a statement from Amit Shah, the Home Minister in Parliament on police violence, a judicial inquiry into the alleged police excesses against protesting students, and an immediate discussion on NEET in both Houses. Rahul Gandhi was taken to Chhatrasal Stadium in Model Town, while Priyanka Gandhi was detained at Mandir Marg police station. Both were released later at night. Sonia Gandhi, the Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson reached the police station where Priyanka was being held. Notably, Karnataka Chief Minister D K Shivakumar and Kerala Chief Minister V D Satheesan also joined the protest. 

Earlier, Rahul Gandhi along with other opposition leaders had met Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, urging him to allow a discussion in Parliament on the police ‘brutality’ and NEET controversy, but was informed that the government’s approval was a must to take up the discussion.  

The First Amendment to the United States (US) Constitution, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The first three words of the Constitution of India and US Constitution are the same. The words are: "We, the people". 

Can "We, the people" be subservient to the illegitimate and immoral acts of the Police and non-State actors masquerading as police and masked faceless mercenaries?    

 

Sword of Damocles hanging over Deepak Prakash, the minister in Bihar government

"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." 

-Article 164 (4), The Constitution of India  

In Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), the Supreme Court's Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana passed an order dated June 15, 2026 issuing notices to the State of Bihar, Cabinet Secretary, Deepak Prakash and the Election Commission Of India.  Disregarding the fact that executive power is tethered to electoral legitimacy, Deepak Prakash has been appointed as a minister in the Bihar government in breach of constitutional provisions under Article 164(4) of the Constitution of India. It feigns ignorance about Supreme Court's judgements in S.R Chaudhuri vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2001 INSC 373), Har Sharan Verma vs. Tribhuvan Narain Singh (1971), Har Sharan Verma vs. State of U.P (1985) and S.P Anand vs. H.D Deve Gowda (1996). The case is likely to listed on July 15, 2026. It was filed on June 23, 2026, registered on June 24, 2026 and verified on June 25, 2026. 

The PIL has sought an issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto calling upon Deepak Prakash to demonstrate the constitutional authority under which he continues to occupy and exercise powers attached to the office of Minister of Panchayati Raj, Bihar, along with consequential reliefs seeking declaration that the impugned reappointment is unconstitutional, void ab initio, illegal, contrary to Article 164(4) of the Constitution of India.

The PIL has challenged the reappointment of Deepak Prakash as Bihar's Panchayati Raj Minister. Article 164(4) of the Constitution allows non-legislators to be ministers, provided they are elected to the state legislature within six months. The petition questions whether the constitutional clock can be "restarted" through a fresh government appointment after the initial six-month limit expired without the minister securing a legislative seat. 

The PIL raises the issue of deliberate circumvention and structural subversion of the democratic and representative constitutional mandate embodied under Article 164 of the Constitution of India by artificially fragmenting and reutilizing the limited constitutional grace period available to a non-legislator Minister. 

Deepak Prakash was initially appointed and sworn in as Minister of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, on November 20, 2025 under the Council of Ministers headed by Nitish Kumar unmindful of the fact that he was notan elected member of either the Bihar Vidhan Sabha or the Bihar Vidhan Parishad. 

Deepak Prakash is required to secure membership of either House of the State Legislature within a maximum period of six consecutive months from the date of his initial appointment, failing which he would constitutionally cease to hold ministerial office. The maximum constitutional period available to Prakash under Article 164(4), commenced from November 20, 2025, which expired on May 19, 2026. 

Following the resignation and dissolution of the earlier Council of Ministers headed by Nitish Kumar, the ruling alliance elected Samrat Choudhary as its legislative leader. He was sworn in as the 24th Chief Minister of Bihar on April 15, 2026. Deepak Prakash demitted ministerial office and ceased to be part of the council of ministers. 

The PIL has submitted that after a distinct intervening gap period of approximately 22 days consequently came into existence extending from April 15, 2026 till May 6, 2026, during which Deepak Prakash held no constitutional, ministerial, executive, statutory, or public office whatsoever as the newly constituted Government under the leadership of Samrat Choudhary initially functioned with a limited and truncated Council of Ministers, and all unallocated portfolios, including the Department of Panchayati Raj, remained under the direct supervision and charge of the Chief Minister himself.  

But thereafter, on May 7, 2026, upon expansion of the newly constituted council of ministers,Deepak Praksh, the respondent No. 3 was once again reappointed and sworn in as minister of Panchayati Raj in  Bihar, although he remained an unelected non-legislator and despite been a minister for about 4 months and 26 days out of the constitutionally permissible six-month period contemplated under Article 164(4) without being a member of the legislature. As a consequence, only a residual balance period of approximately 1 month and 4 days remained available before expiry of the original six-month constitutional limitation calculated from the initial appointment dated November 20, 2025. 

By artificially fragmenting, interrupting, suspending, and attempting to carry forward the unexpired balance portion of the original constitutional grace period through resignation and subsequent reappointment under a reconstituted Government during the tenure of the very same legislative assembly, the respondent authorities have engaged in a colourable exercise of constitutional power intended to indirectly achieve what is constitutionally impermissible directly. 

In S.R Chaudhuri vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2001 INSC 373), the Supreme Court of India interpreted Article 164(4) of the Indian Constitution to ascertain the constitutional validity of appointing a non-legislative member to the council of ministers and the limitations imposed on such appointments. The core issue was whether reappointment of a minister who failed to secure a legislative seat within the stipulated six months was permissible. The parties involved were Tej Parkash Singh, who appointed as a minister without being a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, and the State of Punjab.

The appellant had challenged the reappointment of Tej Parkash Singh as a minister, arguing that such reappointment violated constitutional provisions. The Court held that Article 164(4) does not permit the repeated reappointment of a non-legislative individual as a minister beyond the initial six-month grace period without securing an elected legislative position. The Court declared the reappointment unconstitutional, emphasizing the principles of representative and responsible government. The judgment referred to previous cases and constitutional provisions to elucidate the limits of Article 164(4). The main precedents included: Har Sharan Verma vs. Tribhuvan Narain Singh (1971), wherein, the Court affirmed that a non-legislative Minister must secure a legislative seat within six months. 

It also relied on the decision in Har Sharan Verma vs. State of U.P (1985), wherein, the Court reinforced the interpretation that non-legislative appointments are temporary and subject to electoral validation.

It recollected the decision in S.P Anand vs. H.D Deve Gowda (1996), wherein, it held that even the Prime Minister can be a non-member initially but he/she must secure a legislative position within six months.

The Court dwelt on the constitutional intent behind Article 164(4), tracing its lineage to the Government of India Act, 1935. It stressed that while the Constitution permits the appointment of non-legislative Ministers in extraordinary circumstances, such appointments are strictly time-bound. The term "six consecutive months" was interpreted literally, preventing any form of reappointment beyond the initial period without electoral endorsement. The Court rejected the notion that repeated appointments could circumvent the constitutional mandate. It underscored that such practices would undermine the democratic fabric by allowing individuals to hold executive power without legislative accountability.

This judgment reiterated the sanctity of the constitutional provisions governing ministerial appointments. It establishes a clear precedent that non-legislative Ministers cannot be reappointed beyond the six-month grace period. Any attempt to circumvent this through repetitive appointments is unconstitutional. The principles of representative and responsible government are paramount and cannot be overridden by political expediency.

Notably, responding to a question regarding appointment of "non-members in the council of ministers" from Kanti Singh and Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh in the Lok Sabha, on August 23, 2001, the Union Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs and Shipping had informed that "The Supreme Court of India in its judgement of August 17, 2001, in S.R. Chaudhury Vs. State of Punjab and Others has clearly indicated that no one can be reappointed under Article 164(4) without getting elected to the Legislature. The Court has observed that it was not the intention of the Founding Fathers of the Constitution that a person should continue to be Minister without being duly elected, by repeated appointments, each time for a period of six consecutive months. Further, such an appointment would be unacceptable in any parliamentary system of Government. Article 75(5) being pari materia with Article 164(4) of the Constitution, the position would be the same in the case of Article 75(5) of the Constitution."

Significantly, all ministers at a time can be non-members of Parliament or state legislature for six months. 

Office of Advocate General demoted, deleted from list of Heads of Departments through 14th amendment in Bihar Service Code, after 23rd Advocate General takes charge

By the order of the Governor of Bihar, Rachna Patil, Secretary (Expenditure). Department of Finance has issued a notification dated June 19, 2026, demoting the Office of Advocate General by deleting it from the list of Heads of Departments under Bihar Service Code. The notification reads: "No. 3A-5-S.C.-05/2013-5777/F. —In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article- 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Bihar is hereby pleased to make the following Amendment in The Bihar Service Code, 1952 with immediate effect:—Amendment "The Office of The Advocate General, Bihar" shall be deleted at S.No.-34 from the list of Heads of Department of the Appendix-3 of the Bihar Service Code."  

Notably, this amendment was published in the aftermath of the appointment of Satydarshi Sanjay as the 23rd Advocate General of Bihar from the date on which he took charge. The notification dated June 18, 2026 with regard to his appointment was issued under the signature of Balram Dubey by the order of the Governor of Bihar. S.D. Sanjay, a law graduate from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University was serving as the Additional Solicitor General of India before taking charge as the 23rd AG on June 18, 2026. He has served as Additional Advocate General of Bihar during 2010-2014.  

The notification from Balram Dubey, Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar reads:"भारतीय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 165 (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्यिों का प्रयोग करते हुए बिहार के राज्यपाल, श्री एस०डी० संजय (श्री सत्यदर्शी संजय), वरीय अधिवक्ता, उच्च न्यायालय, पटना को उनके पदभार ग्रहण की तिथि से महाधिवक्ता, बिहार के पद पर नियुक्त करते है।" A copy of the communication was sent to 22nd AG at Shahi Bhawan, Shahi Lane, S.P.Verma Road, Patna-800001. 

This amendment has been enacted after the resignation of Prashant Kumar Shahi, the 22nd Advocate General (AG) of Bihar on June 15, 2026. Balram Dubey, Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar communicated to the 22nd AG that his resignation has been accepted under instructions from the afternoon of June 15, 2026 vide letter no. 4742. 

No one was Advocate General of Bihar for three days because after the resignation of 22nd AG, no one was appointed for three days.         

Notably, the details regarding the acceptance of the resignation of the 22nd AG and appointment of teh 23rd AG has been published on the official website of the office of the Advocate General, Bihar, High Court, Patna. The website was developed by the l.T. Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. It was launched on September 22, 2025 at 4:30 pm. The resignation letter has not been published on the website.

Earlier, by the order of Governor of Bihar, The Bihar Service Code, 1952 was amended in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 to elevate the status of Office of The Advocate General, Bihar.  The 13th amendment to Bihar Service Code reads: "The Office of The Advocate General, Bihar" shall be added after S.No.-33 at S.No.-34 in the list of Heads of Department of the Appendix-3 of the Bihar Service Code." It was notified in the Bihar Gazette No. 856 on August 28, 2024. It implied that the Advocate General (AG) was deemed as the Head of Department of Government of Bihar. The upgradation of the AG Office into a separate department is a significant institutional change. AG was designated as head of the newly created department. It implied that AG was been granted the status of Cabinet rank minister. 

With the 14th amendment in the Bihar Service Code, AG will no more be deemed the head of a department.  During the tenure of the 22nd AG, questions were raised in the Bihar State Assembly about the role AG as the 46th Department of Bihar Government but the office of the Speaker, Bihar State Assembly had not allowed those questions.     

Notably, Mahabir Prasad was the longest serving AG He was AG for 19 years. Ram Balak Mahto served as AG for 14 years. P.K Shahi served for some 8 years. 

 The list of former Advocate Generals are as under:

1  Baldeo Sahay 1937 to 1942

2  Jaffar Imam 1942 to 1943

3  Mahabir Prasad 1943 to 1947

4  Laxmi Kant Jha 1948 to 1950

5  Mahabir Prasad 1950 to 1965

6  Lal Narayan Sinha 28-06-1965 to 31-01-1972

7  Balbhadra Prasad Singh 01-02-1972 to 27-09-1976

8  Tara Kant Jha 28-09-1976 to 19-09-1977

9  Krishna Das Chatterjee 20-09-1977 to 16-10-1979

10  Radha Raman 19-10-1979 to 04-04-1980

11  Ram Balak Mahto 05-04-1980 to 09-07-1980

12  Kanhaiya Prasad Verma 10-07-1980 to 04-04-1985

13  Ram Balak Mahto 05-04-1985 to 11-12-1989

14  Kanhaiya Prasad Verma 19-12-1989 to 11-04-1990

15  Ram Balak Mahto 12-04-1990 to 01-12-1993

16  Rameshwar Prasad 02-12-1993 to 31-12-1997

17  Shashi Anugrah Narain 01-01-1998 to 24-11-2005

18  Prashant Kumar Shahi 25-11-2005 to 25-11-2010

19  Ram Balak Mahto 29-11-2010 to 19-02-2015

20  Ram Balak Mahto 27-02-2015 to 28-07-2017

21  Lalit Kishore        31-07-2017 to 10-01-2023

22. Prashant Kumar Shahi    16-01-2023 to 15-06-2026

Also read: Advocate General, Bihar gets cabinet minister status after 13th amendment in the Appendix-3 of Bihar Service Code