Supreme Court Told Bihar Minister Deepak Prakash Nominated as MLC, Enabling Him to Continue in Cabinet

New Delhi: The Bihar government on Friday informed the Supreme Court that Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash has been nominated as a Member of the Legislative Council (MLC), allowing him to continue as a member of the State Cabinet.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a petition seeking Prakash’s removal as Panchayati Raj Minister on the ground that he had not become a member of either House of the Bihar Legislature within the constitutionally prescribed six-month period.

The Supreme Court directed the Bihar government to place on record the notification relating to Prakash’s nomination as an MLC and adjourned the matter for further hearing.

Challenge to Deepak Prakash’s Ministerial Appointment

Deepak Prakash was first sworn in as Bihar’s Panchayati Raj Minister on November 20, 2025, in the Council of Ministers headed by then Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. At that time, he was not a member of either the Bihar Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council.

Following the resignation and dissolution of the Nitish Kumar-led Cabinet, BJP leader Samrat Choudhary became Chief Minister on April 15, 2026. Prakash consequently ceased to be a Minister.

He was subsequently re-inducted into the Cabinet and sworn in again as Panchayati Raj Minister on May 7, 2026, despite not being an elected member of the State Legislature at that time.

Social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh approached the Supreme Court challenging Prakash’s continuation as a Minister. The petitioner argued that Prakash had already used approximately four months and 26 days of the six-month period available under Article 164(4) of the Constitution.

According to the petition, the six-month period expired on May 19. The petitioner contended that Prakash’s resignation and subsequent reappointment could not restart the constitutional six-month period.

Reliance on Supreme Court’s 2001 Judgment

The petitioner’s counsel relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab (2001).

In that case, the Supreme Court held that a person who is not a member of the State Legislature cannot be repeatedly appointed as a Minister for successive periods of six months without securing election to the Legislature.

The Court had held that the constitutional limitation under Article 164(4) cannot be circumvented by creating a short break in the ministerial tenure and subsequently reappointing the same person without the person obtaining the confidence of the electorate through election.

The petitioner therefore alleged that the break between Prakash’s two ministerial appointments amounted to a “colourable exercise” of constitutional power, designed to achieve indirectly what could not be achieved directly.

Bihar Government Informs Court About MLC Nomination

Appearing for the Bihar government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Bench that Prakash had since been nominated as an MLC during the pendency of the proceedings.

The State also submitted that Prakash’s original ministerial term had ended and that he was subsequently appointed to the Cabinet afresh.

The Supreme Court has now directed the State to place the relevant nomination notification on record. The Court will consider the effect of Prakash’s subsequent nomination on the legal challenge concerning his earlier and present ministerial appointments.

Constitutional Issue Under Article 164(4)

Article 164(4) of the Constitution permits a person who is not a member of the State Legislature to be appointed as a Minister. However, such a person cannot continue as a Minister for more than six consecutive months unless they become a member of the State Legislature within that period.

The central issue before the Supreme Court is whether this constitutional limitation can be circumvented by a Minister resigning and being reappointed after a short interval without first becoming a member of the Legislature.

The subsequent nomination of Prakash as an MLC adds another dimension to the case. The Court may have to determine whether his later acquisition of legislative membership affects the validity of the earlier ministerial appointment or the challenge to his subsequent reappointment.

The proceedings could have wider implications for the appointment and reappointment of non-legislators as Ministers and the manner in which the six-month limitation under Article 164(4) is applied.