Bihar Government Defends Minister’s Position Amidst Legal Challenge

The Bihar government informed the Supreme Court on Friday that Deepak Prakash, who serves as a minister, has been officially nominated as a Member of the Legislative Council (MLC). This nomination, the government argues, entitles him to remain in the state cabinet. This development was presented during a hearing by a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana. The court was addressing a petition calling for Prakash’s removal from his role as Panchayati Raj minister.

Contents

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court requested the Bihar government to submit the notification of Prakash’s MLC nomination for the record. Consequently, the court decided to defer the petition to a later date.

Background of the Controversy

Prakash was initially appointed as the Minister of Panchayati Raj on November 20, 2025, under the leadership of then-Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. Importantly, at that time, Prakash was neither an elected member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) nor the Bihar Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad). Following Nitish Kumar’s cabinet resignation and its subsequent dissolution, BJP leader Samrat Choudhary was inaugurated as Bihar’s 24th Chief Minister on April 15. Prakash vacated his ministerial post, leaving a gap of 22 days from April 15 to May 6, during which he held no official role.

On May 7, upon the expansion of the newly formed Council of Ministers, Prakash was reappointed as Minister of Panchayati Raj, despite remaining unelected. By this point, he had served approximately 4 months and 26 days of the constitutionally allowed six-month period as per Article 164(4) of the Constitution, which states that a minister can serve without election for a maximum of six months. This period concluded for Prakash on May 19.

Legal Challenge

In June, social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh challenged Prakash’s appointment, arguing that his continued service in the cabinet after failing to secure election within the six-month window violated constitutional provisions. The petitioner accused the state of engaging in a ‘colourable exercise of constitutional power’ by strategically using resignation and reappointment to bypass the constitutional limits.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State, informed the court that Prakash’s MLC nomination occurred during the case’s pendency. “He is continuing as the Minister for Panchayati Raj. The earlier appointment has come to an end,” Mehta stated.

However, the petitioner’s counsel maintained that the issue should be addressed in light of the Supreme Court’s precedent in SR Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab. The 2001 judgment underscored that no individual should be repeatedly appointed as a minister for “six consecutive months” without securing an electoral mandate.

The Supreme Court, in its previous ruling, emphasized that Article 164(4) should not be undermined by temporary resignations and reappointments without electoral endorsement. “The clear mandate of Article 164(4) is that if an individual does not secure election within the six-month grace period, they must cease to be a minister,” it stated.