SC seeks responses on plea against Deepak Prakash’s reappointment as Bihar Minister

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL challenging Bihar Minister Deepak Prakash's reappointment despite not being a legislator. The petition argues the move violates constitutional provisions, alleging an indirect extension of the six-month limit allowed for non-legislator ministers

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the reappointment of Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash despite him not being a member of either House of the state legislature.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana issued notices to the respondents, including the Election Commission of India (ECI), Deepak Prakash, and the Bihar government, and posted the matter for further hearing on July 15.

---

The PIL, filed by social activist and whistleblower Rakesh Kumar Singh, raises a key constitutional question regarding the scope of Article 164(4) of the Constitution, which permits a non-legislator to serve as a minister for a maximum period of six months, during which he or she must secure membership of the legislature.

The petition challenges the constitutional validity of Deepak Prakash’s reappointment as Panchayati Raj Minister and seeks issuance of a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority under which he continues to hold ministerial office.

According to the plea, Deepak Prakash was first inducted into the Bihar Cabinet on November 20, 2025, despite not being a member of either the Bihar Assembly or the Legislative Council. The petitioner contended that he continued to function as a minister for nearly five months without becoming a legislator. The petition stated that Chief Minister Nitish Kumar resigned on April 15, resulting in the dissolution of the Council of Ministers and cessation of Deepak Prakash’s ministerial tenure. After a gap of 22 days, he was reappointed as Panchayati Raj Minister in the newly constituted government headed by Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary on May 7, though he had still not secured membership of either house of the state legislature.

The petitioner argued that the reappointment amounts to a colourable exercise of constitutional power aimed at indirectly extending the six-month constitutional grace period available to a non-legislator minister.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S.R. Chaudhuri versus State of Punjab (2001), the plea contended that the exception under Article 164(4) is a one-time constitutional privilege and cannot be repeatedly invoked through resignation, cabinet reshuffles, change of Chief Minister, dissolution of a ministry, or reappointment.

The petition submitted that allowing repeated appointments of unelected individuals to ministerial office would undermine parliamentary democracy, representative government, collective responsibility and electoral accountability. It further alleged violations of Articles 14, 164(2), 164(4), and 141 of the Constitution, along with broader principles of constitutional morality and the rule of law.

The PIL seeks a declaration that Deepak Prakash’s reappointment is unconstitutional and void, and raises the larger issue of whether an unelected individual can repeatedly occupy a ministerial post without first obtaining a democratic mandate through election or legislative membership.

The controversy over Deepak Prakash’s ministerial continuance comes amid recent Bihar Legislative Council elections in which all 10 candidates were elected unopposed. Notably, Deepak Prakash was not among the NDA nominees for the vacant Council seats despite continuing as Panchayati Raj Minister. His exclusion from the ruling alliance’s list of candidates triggered speculation over his political future and intensified questions over his continuance in the Cabinet without being a member of either House of the Bihar Legislature.