Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash, (second right), greets Council chairman Abhidesh Narayan after taking oath as member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly Council in Patna on Thursday. (PTI)
A week after the Supreme Court questioned how a minister has been retained unelected beyond the six-month constitutional limit, the Bihar government on Friday submitted that there is no bar on the continuation of Deepak Prakash as Panchayati Raj Minister since he has been nominated as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the state government, said this to a CJI Surya Kant-led three-judge bench, which directed him to submit the nomination notification by the next date of hearing.
The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, was hearing a plea challenging the appointment of Deepak Prakash as Bihar’s Panchayati Raj Minister for the second time, without being a member of either House of the state Legislature.
On July 31, BJP MLC Devesh Kumar resigned from the Legislative Council in a bid to facilitate the entry of RLM leader Deepak Prakash.
During the hearing on July 30, the top court had told the Bihar government that “it is a pure legal issue” and the state will have to explain “how are you retaining a minister beyond six months when he is not elected?”
Article 164(4) allows a non-member to remain a minister for six months, subject to getting elected as a member within that period.
Prakash, the son of RLM president Upendra Kushwaha, was first inducted as the Panchayati Raj Minister on November 20, 2025, by then CM Nitish Kumar, though he was neither a member of the Assembly nor the Council.
After Nitish resigned, Samrat took charge as the CM on April 15, 2026, and inducted Prakash as the Panchayati Raj Minister on May 7, 2026.
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh, has argued that Article 164(4) is a one-time opportunity and cannot be utilised every time there is a change of government. He had to get re-elected between November 20, 2025, when he was first sworn in, and May 20, 2026, the plea pointed out.
Singh contended that the re-appointment was in circumvention of constitutional safeguards and undermines representative democracy. He argued that it undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy, representative government, collective responsibility and electoral accountability.
He urged that SC declare Prakash’s reappointment and continuance in office unconstitutional, illegal and void, and to restrain him from exercising the powers vested in the ministerial office.