E-Paper
SC questions Bihar govt over continuation of unelected minister
The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Bihar government on Deepak Prakash continuing to be a minister without being a member of any of the two houses in the state’s bicameral legislature, giving it till August 4 to respond
The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Bihar government on Deepak Prakash continuing to be a minister without being a member of any of the two houses in the state’s bicameral legislature, giving it till August 4 to respond.
“How is the state retaining a Minister if he is not elected?” asked Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant after the court was told that the state is yet to file a response to a petition challenging Prakash’s reappointment on May 7 this year.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Bihar resident Rakesh Kumar Singh challenging Prakash’s reappointment and continuance under Article 164(4) of the Constitution, which permits a non-legislator to serve as a minister for a maximum period of six months.
Advocate Sudeep Chandra, appearing for Singh, sought an urgent listing of the matter stating that the minister is still continuing in office. He added that notice was issued on the PIL on June 15 and the state has not responded so far.
The court accepted the mentioning request and posted the matter for August 4. “It’s a pure question of law. We will not grant you time on the next occasion for filing an affidavit,” the CJI told the lawyer representing the state.
Prakash, son of Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RLM) chief Upendra Kushwaha, was initially appointed and sworn in as minister of Panchayati Raj on November 20, 2025 in the then chief minister Nitish Kumar-led cabinet. He was not a member of either the legislative assembly or the legislative council at the time.
The PIL states that an intervening gap of about 22 days arose between April 15, 2026, and May 6, 2026, during which Prakash held no ministerial office after the formation of a new government headed by Samrat Choudhary. During that period, the Panchayati Raj portfolio remained with the chief minister, it says.
However, following the expansion of the council of ministers on May 7, 2026, Prakash was reappointed as Panchayati Raj minister despite continuing to remain a non-legislator.
According to the plea, Prakash had already utilised nearly four months and 26 days of the six-month period contemplated under Article 164(4) from the date of his original appointment, leaving only a little over a month before the constitutional deadline expired.
The plea contends that the constitutional six-month window available to a non-legislator minister cannot be repeatedly invoked through resignation and reappointment to enable a person to continue in office without being elected. The Supreme Court has previously held that the provision cannot be used as a device to repeatedly appoint a non-legislator without securing an electoral mandate.
