Supreme Court To Hear Plea Challenging Bihar Minister Deepak Prakash's Appointment Despite Not Being MLA On June 15

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, through AoR Sanya Kaushal seeks a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority under which Prakash continues as a minister and challenges his reappointment on May 7, 2026, as being contrary to Article 164(4) of the Constitution.

The plea has been drawn by Advocate Sudeep Chandra. 

Filed by one Rakesh Kumar Singh, a permanent resident of Bihar, contends that Article 164(4), which permits a non-legislator to serve as a minister for a maximum period of six consecutive months, cannot be repeatedly invoked to enable a person to continue in office without securing election to the legislature. According to the plea, such reappointments amount to a circumvention of constitutional safeguards and undermine representative democracy.

The petition seeks declarations that Prakash's reappointment and continuance in office are unconstitutional, illegal and void, along with directions restraining him from exercising powers attached to the ministerial post.

Singh has raised a constitutional grievance concerning the deliberate circumvention and structural subversion of the democratic and representative constitutional mandate embodied under Article 164 of the Constitution of India by artificially fragmenting and reutilizing the limited constitutional grace period available to a non-legislator Minister.

Notably, Prakash was initially appointed and sworn in as Minister of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, on 20 November, 2025 under the Council of Ministers headed by Nitish Kumar despite admittedly not being an elected member of either the Bihar Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) or the Bihar Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad).

The petition argues that after a distinct intervening gap period of approximately 22 days consequently came into existence extending from 15.04.2026 till 06.05.2026, during which Prakash admittedly held no constitutional, ministerial, executive, statutory, or public office whatsoever as the newly constituted Government under the leadership of Samrat Choudhary initially functioned with a limited and truncated Council of Ministers, and all unallocated portfolios, including the Department of Panchayati Raj, remained under the direct supervision and charge of the Chief Minister himself.

"However, thereafter, on 07.05.2026, upon expansion of the newly constituted Council of Ministers, Respondent No. 3 was once again reappointed and sworn in as Minister of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, despite continuing to remain an unelected non-legislator and despite already having availed approximately 4 months and 26 days out of the constitutionally permissible six-month period contemplated under Article 164(4). Consequently, upon such reappointment, only a residual balance period of approximately 1 month and 4 days remained available before expiry of the original six-month constitutional limitation calculated from the initial appointment dated 20.11.2025," top court has been told.

According to the Petitioner, by artificially fragmenting, interrupting, suspending, and attempting to carry forward the unexpired balance portion of the original constitutional grace period through resignation and subsequent reappointment under a reconstituted Government during the tenure of the very same Legislative Assembly, the Respondent authorities have engaged in a colourable exercise of constitutional power intended to indirectly achieve what is constitutionally impermissible directly.

The plea accordingly seeks issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto calling upon Prakash to demonstrate the constitutional authority under which he continues to occupy and exercise powers attached to the office of Minister of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, along with consequential reliefs seeking declaration that the impugned reappointment is unconstitutional, void ab initio, illegal, contrary to Article 164(4) of the Constitution of India.