Polity · 10 Aug 2026

Article 164(4) one-time concession

Consider the following Assertion (A) and Reason (R): Assertion (A): A person who is not a member of the state legislature can be appointed a minister under Article 164(4) for a maximum of six consecutive months on only one occasion during an Assembly's tenure. Reason (R): In S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab (2001), the Supreme Court held that the six-month grace period under Article 164(4) is a "one-time concession" that cannot be reused through resignation and re-swearing. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above Assertion (A) and Reason (R)?

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests the ability to verify that a cited precedent's holding genuinely and precisely explains a constitutional assertion, rather than merely being a related but distinct legal fact.

Subscribe / Login in App →
About this question

Why in news

The Supreme Court is currently examining whether Bihar's re-induction of minister Deepak Prakash by a newly formed government, 13 days before his first deadline, tests an unresolved edge of the Chaudhuri doctrine - whether the "one-time concession" survives when a different government makes the second appointment.

Why for UPSC

Assertion-Reasoning format tests whether aspirants can verify both the constitutional rule and its precise judicial source separately, rather than assuming a plausible-sounding pairing is automatically linked correctly.

Prelims summary

Article 164(4) permits a non-member minister a maximum six-month tenure once per Assembly term; S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab (2001) established this as a "one-time concession" that cannot be reused via resignation and re-appointment.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.