Deepak Prakash can continue as Bihar minister after MLC nomination: State tells Supreme Court

The Bihar government on Friday told the Supreme Court that minister Deepak Prakash has been nominated as a Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) and thus can continue to be part of the State cabinet.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition seeking Prakash's removal as the Panchayati Raj minister.

The Court asked the State to place the notification of Prakash's nomination as an MLC on record and adjourned the petition to a future date.

Prakash was initially sworn in as Minister of Panchayati Raj on November 20, 2025, under the Council of Ministers headed by Nitish Kumar despite not being an elected member of either the Bihar Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) or the Bihar Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad).

Following the resignation and dissolution of the Nitish Kumar cabinet, BJP leader Samrat Choudhary was sworn in as the 24th Chief Minister of Bihar on April 15. Prakash consequently demitted ministerial office and ceased to be part of the Council of Ministers.

A gap period of approximately 22 days followed, from April 15 to May 6 during which Prakash held no constitutional, ministerial, executive, statutory or public office whatsoever.

On May 7, upon expansion of the newly constituted Council of Ministers, Prakash was once again re-appointed and sworn in as Minister of Panchayati Raj, despite continuing to remain unelected. He had already availed about 4 months and 26 days of the constitutionally permissible six-month period

As per Article 164(4) of the Constitution, the maximum period a minister can continue in the post under these circumstances is a consecutive period of 6 months. This period expired on May 19 in Prakash's case.

Prakash's appointment was challenged in June by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh on the ground that he continued to remain in the cabinet even after not getting elected to either house of the State legislature within six months of his appointment as minister.

The petitioner contended that by artificially fragmenting and attempting to carry forward the unexpired balance of the original period through resignation and subsequent re-appointment, the State engaged in a colourable exercise of constitutional power intended to indirectly achieve what was constitutionally impermissible directly.

On Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, said that during the pendency of the case, he was nominated as an MLC.

"He is continuing as the Minister for Panchayati Raj. The earlier appointment has come to an end," Mehta said.

However, the counsel representing the petitioner continued to press for the minister's removal, submitting that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in SR Chaudhuri v State of Punjab.

The top court in the ruling delivered in 2001 said an individual cannot be permitted to be appointed a minister repeatedly for a term of "six consecutive months", without him getting himself elected in the meanwhile.

"The clear mandate of Article 164(4)that if an individual concerned is not able to get elected to the legislature within the grace period of six consecutive months, he shall cease to be a Minister, cannot be allowed to be frustrated by giving a gap of few days and reappointing the individual as a Minister, without his securing confidence of the electorate in the meanwhile," the Supreme Court had said then.

[Read Live Thread]