New Delhi/Patna: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Bihar government, Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash and the Election Commission of India on a petition challenging his reappointment as a minister despite not being a member of either House of the Bihar legislature.
A bench comprising Surya Kant and V. Mohana took cognisance of the writ petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh and sought responses from the respondents.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice asked whether Deepak Prakash was still serving as a minister. After the petitioner confirmed that he continued to hold office, the court issued formal notices.
Petition Challenges Constitutional Validity
The petition argues that Deepak Prakash is neither a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly nor the Bihar Legislative Council and, therefore, cannot continue as a minister beyond the period permitted under the Constitution.
Under Article 164(4) of the Constitution, a person who is not a member of the legislature may serve as a minister for a maximum of six months. During this period, the individual must secure election or nomination to either House of the state legislature.
According to the petitioner, this constitutional relaxation is a one-time provision and cannot be revived through the formation of a new government.
Sequence of Events
The petition outlines the following timeline:
- November 20, 2025: Then Chief Minister Nitish Kumar inducted Deepak Prakash into the Council of Ministers despite his not being an MLA or MLC.
- April 15, 2026: The Nitish Kumar government fell, leading to the dissolution of the Council of Ministers.
- May 7, 2026: Deepak Prakash was reappointed as a minister in the new government headed by Samrat Choudhary.
The petitioner contends that the original six-month period, calculated from the November 20, 2025 appointment, expired on May 20, 2026. As a result, his continuation in office after that date is alleged to be unconstitutional.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The plea cites the Supreme Court’s ruling in the S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab case.
According to the petition, the judgment held that the six-month exemption under Article 164(4) is absolute and cannot be restarted through resignation, cabinet reshuffles, a change in chief ministership, or the formation of a new government.
The petitioner argues that permitting repeated appointments of unelected individuals would undermine parliamentary democracy, ministerial accountability and the constitutional scheme governing executive office.
Relief Sought
The petition seeks the issuance of a writ of quo warranto, requiring Deepak Prakash to explain the authority under which he continues to hold the office of minister.
Advocate Sudeep Chandra and Advocate-on-Record Sanya Kaushal appeared on behalf of the petitioner during the proceedings.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider the responses of the Bihar government, Deepak Prakash and the Election Commission in the next stage of the case.
