A significant legal petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of India, questioning the reappointment of Deepak Prakash as the Panchayati Raj Minister of Bihar. This case, titled Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors, addresses Prakash’s continued tenure in office despite not being an elected member of the Bihar State Legislature.
The petition seeks an explanation of the legal and constitutional grounds under which Prakash maintains his ministerial position. It also requests a judicial declaration that his reappointment on May 7 and his continuation in office are unconstitutional, illegal, and in violation of Article 164(4) of the Indian Constitution.
Article 164(4) and Its Implications
Article 164(4) of the Constitution of India allows an individual who is not a member of the State Legislature to be appointed as a minister, but only as a temporary measure. The individual must secure a seat in the Legislature within six months of appointment; otherwise, they are required to step down from their ministerial role.
According to the petition, Prakash, affiliated with the Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RLM), initially assumed office on November 20, 2025, under Nitish Kumar’s administration, without being an elected member of either the Bihar Legislative Assembly or the Bihar Legislative Council. The six-month constitutional timeline began from this date, expiring around May 19, 2026.
Political Developments and Legal Challenges
In April 2026, political dynamics in Bihar shifted when Nitish Kumar resigned, leading to the dissolution of the council of ministers. Samrat Choudhary was sworn in as the new Chief Minister on April 15, 2026. During this transition, Prakash did not hold any ministerial office for a 22-day period.
More Read
The legal challenge arises due to Prakash’s reappointment as Panchayati Raj Minister on May 7, 2026, in the newly formed Choudhary Cabinet, despite his failure to secure election to either house of the Bihar Legislature. The petition asserts that the government cannot exploit legal loopholes by segmenting a minister’s tenure and reappointing the same individual after a brief hiatus.
The plea characterizes this maneuver as a “colourable exercise of constitutional power,” intended to circumvent constitutional mandates indirectly. The argument extends beyond Prakash’s reappointment, touching upon broader themes of parliamentary democracy, constitutional accountability, and the constraints of executive power within the Indian Constitution.
The petition was filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, represented legally by Advocate Sanya Kaushal, and drafted by Advocate Sudeep Chandra. This case highlights ongoing debates about the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions in Indian politics.
