The Supreme Court on Friday, 7 August directed the Bihar government to place on record the official notification appointing Bihar Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council (MLC), after the state informed the court that he had been nominated to the Upper House and had already taken the oath.

What Happened in Court

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana took on record the Bihar government's submission that Deepak Prakash had been appointed to the Bihar Legislative Council and sworn in. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Bihar government, submitted that the alleged disqualification no longer survives given Prakash's nomination as an MLC.

Despite the state's plea to close the matter in light of this development, the apex court declined and instead asked for the formal appointment notification. The court adjourned the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh, with the matter likely to be listed next on 20 August, according to the Supreme Court's official case status portal.

The Constitutional Question at the Centre

The PIL raises a pointed constitutional question under Article 164(4) of the Constitution, which permits a non-legislator to serve as a minister for a maximum of six months, within which the person must secure membership of either House of the state legislature. According to the petition, Deepak Prakash was first inducted into the Bihar Cabinet on 20 November 2025 without being a member of either House.

Following the resignation of then Chief Minister Nitish Kumar on 15 April and the formation of a new government under Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary, Prakash was reappointed as Panchayati Raj Minister on 7 May. The petitioner argued that this reappointment could not effectively reset the six-month clock under Article 164(4), particularly when the same Legislative Assembly remained in existence.

The S.R. Chaudhuri Precedent

The PIL relied on the Supreme Court's 2001 judgment in S.R. Chaudhuri versus State of Punjab, which held that the constitutional exception under Article 164(4) is a one-time privilege and cannot be repeatedly invoked through resignation, change of ministry, Cabinet reshuffles, or reappointment. The petitioner argued that permitting repeated appointments of an unelected individual to ministerial office would undermine parliamentary democracy, representative government, collective responsibility, and electoral accountability.

The Supreme Court had earlier observed that the matter involved a pure question of law and had asked the Bihar government to explain the constitutional basis for allowing Prakash to continue as minister beyond the prescribed six-month period.

How the Vacancy Was Created

The controversy deepened when Prakash was notably absent from the NDA's list of nominees for vacant Bihar Legislative Council seats in recent elections. However, on 31 July, BJP MLC Devesh Kumar resigned from his seat in the Bihar Legislative Council, creating a vacancy. Prakash was subsequently nominated under the Governor's quota and has since taken the oath as an MLC, a development the Bihar government cited before the Supreme Court to argue that the matter had become infructuous.

The petitioner, however, opposed closure, contending that the constitutional violation had already occurred and raising objections over the legality of the process adopted. How the Supreme Court rules on whether the belated nomination cures an earlier constitutional breach will have wider implications for how Article 164(4) is interpreted across states.