NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to Bihar government, Election Commission and state's Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash, on hearing a writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of his re‑appointment to the post without being elected to the State Legislature.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana directed the issuance of notice to Bihar government, Prakash, and the ECI after hearing a petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh. Advocate Sudeep Chandra appeared for the petitioner.
During the course of the hearing on Monday, when CJI Kant asked, “Is he still holding the ministerial post?”, the petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that Prakash continues to serve as a Minister in the Bihar Government. Following this submission, the Court issued notice for further hearing of the matter.
The petition claimed that Prakash, not being a member of either House of the State Legislature, is constitutionally barred from holding ministerial office beyond the six‑month grace period provided under Article 164(4) of the Constitution. The plea of Singh emphasized that this exception is a one‑time opportunity and cannot be revived through resignation, cabinet reshuffles, or change of government.
According to the petition, Prakash was first inducted as Minister on November 20, 2025 by then Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, despite not being a legislator. Following the fall of the Kumar government on April 15, 2026, the Council of Ministers was dissolved. Subsequently, Prakash was even re‑appointed on May 7, 2026 by the new Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary, even though his six‑month period to secure election had already expired on May 20, 2026.
The petitioner argued that such reappointment amounts to a colourable exercise of constitutional power, indirectly extending the six‑month grace period. Reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court’s ruling in S.R. Chaudhuri versus State of Punjab (2001), which held that the six‑month exception under Article 164(4) is non‑renewable and non‑revivable during the life of the same Legislative Assembly.
The plea further contended that repeated appointments of unelected individuals undermine the principles of parliamentary democracy, representative government, collective responsibility, and electoral accountability.
Seeking issuance of a writ, the petition prayed that Prakash be called upon to disclose the constitutional authority under which he continues to hold office.
The plea also sought that his reappointment be declared unconstitutional and void. Alleged violations of Articles 14, 164(2), 164(4), and 141 of the Constitution have been cited, along with the invocation of the doctrines of constitutional morality and the rule of law.