The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL challenging the appointment and continuance of Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash. During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant sought clarity on his status, asking, “Is he still the Minister?”.
The Supreme Court issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment and continuance of Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash.
The petition alleges that he is holding ministerial office despite not being an elected member of the State Legislature.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana took up the matter and agreed to examine the constitutional challenge raised to Prakash’s reappointment as a minister under Article 164(4) of the Constitution.
At the start of the hearing, counsel for the petitioner stated that Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, was currently outside the country and could not participate due to time differences.
The Bench then asked for information on Prakash’s current position.
CJI Surya Kant asked,
“Is he still the Minister?”
After the petitioner’s counsel confirmed that he is, the Court proceeded to issue notice.
The Bench directed,
“Issue notice, dasti. Returnable after reopening,”
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition seeks a writ of quo warranto questioning the basis on which Prakash continues as a minister. It also challenges his reappointment on May 7, 2026, contending that it violates Article 164(4) of the Constitution.
The plea has been filed by one Rakesh Kumar Singh, a permanent resident of Bihar, and is moved through AoR Sanya Kaushal. It is argued by Advocate Sudeep Chandra.
Singh contends that Article 164(4) which allows a person who is not a member of the State Legislature to hold ministerial office for up to six consecutive months cannot be repeatedly relied upon to keep an individual in office without obtaining election to the legislature.
The petitioner submits that such repeated reappointments amount to a circumvention of constitutional limits and weaken representative democracy.
The petition seeks declarations that Prakash’s reappointment and continued occupation of office are unconstitutional, illegal, and void, and it further seeks directions preventing him from exercising powers attached to the ministerial post.
The petitioner’s core grievance is that the democratic and representative constitutional mandate underlying Article 164 has been structurally undermined through an artificial fragmentation and reuse of the limited constitutional protection available to a non-legislator minister.
The petition further states that Prakash was first appointed and sworn in as Minister of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, on November 20, 2025, under the Council of Ministers led by Nitish Kumar, despite not being an elected member of either the Bihar Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) or the Bihar Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad).
It is averred that, after a gap period of approximately 22 days from April 15, 2026 to May 6, 2026 Prakash admittedly held no constitutional, ministerial, executive, statutory, or public office whatsoever.
The petition notes that the newly constituted Government under Samrat Choudhary initially functioned with a limited and truncated Council of Ministers, and that all unallocated portfolios, including the Department of Panchayati Raj, remained directly under the supervision and charge of the Chief Minister.
However, it is further contended that,
“However, thereafter, on 07.05.2026, upon expansion of the newly constituted Council of Ministers, Respondent No. 3 was once again reappointed and sworn in as Minister of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, despite continuing to remain an unelected non-legislator and despite already having availed approximately 4 months and 26 days out of the constitutionally permissible six-month period contemplated under Article 164(4). Consequently, upon such reappointment, only a residual balance period of approximately 1 month and 4 days remained available before expiry of the original six-month constitutional limitation calculated from the initial appointment dated 20.11.2025,”
According to the petition, the authorities have effectively attempted to carry forward the unexpired portion of the original grace period by fragmenting, interrupting, suspending, and then reappointing the minister after resigning, under a reconstituted government while the same legislative assembly continues in office.
The petitioner characterizes this as a colourable exercise of constitutional power designed to achieve indirectly what is allegedly impermissible directly.
On these grounds, the petition seeks issuance of a writ of quo warranto requiring Prakash to explain the constitutional authority under which he continues to occupy and exercise powers as Minister of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar. It also seeks consequential reliefs declaring the impugned reappointment unconstitutional and void ab initio for being contrary to Article 164(4) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.