The Supreme Court on Monday sought a reply from the Bihar government and the Election Commission on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the reappointment of Deepak Prakash as the Panchayati Raj Minister in the state, despite the fact that he is still not a member of either House of the state legislature.
Hearing the PIL filed by one Rakesh Singh, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohanan also sought a reply from Deepak, the son of Rajya Sabha member and Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RLM) chief Upendra Kushwaha, in the case.
The court asked the petitioner’s counsel, “Is he still a minister?” When the counsel said yes, the CJI ordered to issue a notice to Deepak also and posted the matter for hearing in July when the Supreme Court resumes normal functioning after the partial court working days.
RLM spokesman Ram Pukar Sinha said the party will respond only after receiving the notice. The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, questions the basis on which Deepak continues as a minister. It also challenges his reappointment on May 7, 2026, contending that it violates Article 164(4) of the Constitution.
The petitioner has cited a Supreme Court ruling in S R Chaudhary vs State of Punjab in 2001 and asserted that the six-month exemption under Article 164(4) cannot be “reset” through resignation, cabinet reshuffles, or a change of chief minister. The petition alleges violations of Articles 14, 164(2), 164(4), and 141 of the Constitution. Under Article 164(4) of the Constitution, a person who is not a member of the House can serve as a minister for a maximum of six consecutive months, during which time they must secure membership of either House (in case of a state having a legislative council as well).
The petitioner’s counsel, Sudeep Chandra and Sanya Kaushal, argued that Deepak first became a minister in the Nitish cabinet on November 20, 2025, despite not being a member of either the Bihar Legislative Assembly or Council. He served as a minister for five months and ceased to be the same on April 15 following Nitish’s resignation as the Chief Minister. He was appointed minister again on May 7 in the Samrat Choudhary government, though based on the initial appointment, his six-month limit expired on May 20, 2026.
The petitioner argued that the authorities attempted to carry forward the unexpired portion of the original grace period by fragmenting, interrupting, suspending, and then reappointing him as the minister after resigning, under a reconstituted government while the same legislative assembly continues in office.
The petitioner argued that repeatedly appointing an unelected individual as a minister constitutes a misuse of constitutional power, aimed at indirectly extending the six-month exemption period granted to non-legislators.
