The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a writ petition challenging the re-appointment of Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash despite his not being elected as a member of the State Legislature.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana sought responses from the State of Bihar, Deepak Prakash and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on the petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh.
The petition contended that Prakash was not a member of either House of the Bihar Legislature and, therefore, was constitutionally ineligible to continue as a minister beyond the period permitted under Article 164(4) of the Constitution.
It argued that while Article 164(4) permitted a non-legislator to be appointed as a minister for a maximum period of six consecutive months, such a person must secure membership of the State Legislature within that period. According to the petitioner, this constitutional exception was a one-time arrangement and could not be revived or extended through a change in government or fresh appointment.
According to the plea, Prakash was first inducted into the Council of Ministers on November 20, 2025, under the government headed by then Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, despite not being a member of the Legislative Assembly. The Nitish Kumar government fell on April 15, 2026, resulting in the dissolution of the Council of Ministers, it noted.
Thereafter, following a gap of 22 days, Prakash was re-appointed as a minister on May 7, 2026, in the new government headed by Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary.
The petitioner submitted that the six-month period available under Article 164(4), calculated from Prakash’s initial appointment on November 20, 2025, expired on May 20, 2026. It was argued that his re-appointment amounted to a colourable exercise of constitutional power intended to indirectly extend the constitutional grace period available to a non-legislator without requiring him to obtain an electoral mandate.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in SR Chaudhari v State of Punjab. The petition argued that the six-month exception under Article 164(4) was non-renewable and could not be reset through resignation, cabinet reshuffles, a change of the Chief Minister, dissolution of a ministry or re-appointment during the tenure of the same Legislative Assembly.
The plea further contended that permitting repeated appointments of unelected individuals to ministerial office would undermine the constitutional principles of parliamentary democracy, representative government, collective responsibility and electoral accountability.
It argued that such appointments would defeat the purpose of Article 164(4), which envisaged only a temporary exception to the general requirement that ministers must be members of the Legislature.
Seeking the issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the petitioner requested the Court to call upon Prakash to disclose the constitutional authority under which he continued to hold ministerial office and to declare his re-appointment unconstitutional, illegal and void.
The petition also alleged violations of Articles 14, 164(2), 164(4) and 141 of the Constitution. It further invoked the doctrines of constitutional morality, constitutional governance and the rule of law, contending that the impugned re-appointment was inconsistent with settled constitutional principles governing ministerial appointments and democratic accountability.
The post Supreme Court issues notice on plea challenging re-appointment of Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash appeared first on India Legal.