A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the reappointment of Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash on the grounds that he is not a member of either House of the State Legislature and is, therefore, constitutionally ineligible to continue as a minister beyond the period permitted under the Constitution.
Filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh, the petition contended that Article 164(4) of the Constitution permitted a person who was not a member of the State Legislature to be appointed as a minister for a maximum period of six consecutive months. During this period, the individual must secure election or nomination to either House of the Legislature. According to the petitioner, this constitutional exception was a limited one-time relaxation and could not be revived or extended through a change in government or a fresh ministerial appointment.
As per the plea, Deepak Prakash was initially inducted into the Council of Ministers on November 20, 2025, by the government headed by former Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, despite not being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council. Subsequently, the Nitish Kumar government fell on April 15, 2026, resulting in the dissolution of the Council of Ministers.
The petition stated that after a gap of 22 days, Prakash was again sworn in as a minister on May 7, 2026, in the new government led by Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary. However, according to the petitioner, the original six-month period available under Article 164(4), calculated from the date of his first appointment on November 20, 2025, expired on May 20, 2026.
The plea argued that the fresh appointment constituted a colourable exercise of constitutional power intended to indirectly extend the six-month grace period prescribed for non-legislators. Such a course of action defeated the constitutional scheme governing ministerial appointments and legislative accountability.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab, the petitioner submitted that the six-month exemption under Article 164(4) was neither renewable nor revivable during the tenure of the same Legislative Assembly. The plea argued that the constitutional limitation could not be circumvented through resignation, cabinet reshuffles, dissolution of a ministry, change of Chief Minister or reappointment to ministerial office.
The petitioner further contended that permitting repeated appointments of unelected individuals as ministers would undermine the principles of parliamentary democracy, representative government, collective responsibility and electoral accountability that formed part of the Constitution’s basic framework.
Seeking judicial intervention, the petition prayed for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing Deepak Prakash to disclose the constitutional authority under which he continued to hold ministerial office. It further sought a declaration that Prakash’s reappointment was unconstitutional, illegal and void.
The plea alleged violations of Articles 14, 164(2), 164(4) and 141 of the Constitution. It also invoked the doctrines of constitutional morality, rule of law and responsible government, asserting that the continuation of a non-legislator as minister beyond the constitutionally permissible period was contrary to settled constitutional principles. The petitioner requested the Supreme Court to examine the validity of the reappointment and enforce the constitutional limitations governing ministerial tenure.
The post Petition filed in Supreme Court challenging re-appointment of Bihar Minister Deepak Prakash without legislative membership appeared first on India Legal.