Deepak Prakash's induction as a Bihar minister without contesting elections sparked constitutional debates. Despite Article 164 allowing non-elected ministers for six months, his reappointment after government dissolution raised questions. The Supreme Court intervened, and Prakash was eventually nominated as an MLC, ensuring his continuation. This case highlights the complexities of constitutional provisions in governance.
DEEPAK PRAKASH, THE SON OF RASHTRIYA LOK MORCHA (RLM) chief Upendra Kushwaha, was one of the most unexpected faces in Bihar’s political landscape when he was inducted into the Nitish Kumar-led government in November 2025. But the most interesting part is not the sudden summoning of an otherwise unknown political face. He was appointed to the cabinet, despite not having contested or won the Assembly elections.
This appointment, since then, became a major point of contention and surprise, and was subsequently taken to the Supreme Court, as questions on constitutional validity, electoral procedures, and people’s mandate came to acquire significance.
Prakash’s entry into the Bihar Cabinet was particularly notable because his mother, Snehlata Kushwaha, — who had contested and won the Assembly election from Sasaram — was expected to receive a ministerial position, but was swapped, with this son being inducted into the government at the last moment.
There was a simple question that surrounded the imagination of the masses: how can one become part of the government without participating or getting elected in the elections?
Aged 36, Deepak Prakash, has a professional and academic background in technology. Prakash completed his BTech in Computer Science from Manipal Institute of Technology in 2011 and has worked in the Information technology sector for four odd years.
Despite not being a politician by profession, Prakash had found himself in the midst of the political affairs of Bihar since childhood. His father, Upendra Kushwaha, the current chief of the RLM party, had been a key figure in the regional political equations for long. In an individual capacity, Prakash had also been active in the party’s work for the past five years.
However, what was striking about Prakash’s formal engagement into the political landscape was his unconventional electoral route. Without contesting the assembly election, Prakash was inducted into the government, as he took an oath as a minister on November 20, 2025, at the Gandhi Maidan in Patna — during the formation of Nitish Kumar’s 10th government.
This became a major point of contention. The RLM had contested six seats in the 2025 legislative assembly elections, of which they won four, thereby securing its claim of one ministerial position in the NDA-led government in Bihar. Prakash’s mother, who had won the 2025 assembly elections from the Sasaram constituency, was the evident choice for the ministerial position, but was changed at the last moment, with her son entering the government.
Article 164 of the Indian constitution allows an individual who is not a member of the state legislature to be appointed as a minister, provided the person gets elected to the legislature within six months of such an appointment. In case the individual does not become a member of the legislature — by getting elected — within that period, they cannot continue in that ministerial position under the constitutional provision.
Deepak Prakash was inducted as Panchayati Raj Minister on November 20, 2025, by then chief minister Nitish Kumar. The rationale behind this decision indicated that he could hold the ministerial position initially without contesting an election, but his continuation in office was contingent on becoming a member of the legislature within the stipulated period of time.
However, one must be cautious about the fact that, while this constitutional provision provides an unconventional route to the assembly or the cabinet, the provision does not, by itself, mean that an unelected person could remain a minister indefinitely.
Despite a temporary constitutional safeguard assuring Prakash’s induction into the cabinet, the decision was not without any major controversy. And, subsequently, the matter reached the apex court in the country.
According to LiveLaw, a writ petition was filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh on May 30, 2026, challenging Prakash’s induction, and seeking his removal from the position on the ground that he had not become a member of the legislature within six months of his appointment. Having been inducted in the month of November 2025, the six month period provided him a time till May 2026 to get elected, or pass the floor test.
The writ of quo warranto was filed, asking the court to direct Prakash to disclose the constitutional authority under which he continued to hold public office. The Article 32 of the constitution provides the “right to constitutional remedies”, in which one can file the writ of quo warranto, which if assented by the court, asks a person to prove their legal entitlement or validity to hold a public office or exercise a public franchise.
Rakesh Singh’s petition argued for a legal verdict based on the apex court’s constitution Bench judgement in S.R Chaudhuri v. The State of Punjab, 2001, that pertained to the article 164(4) of the constitution.
However, the trajectory of the Bihar assembly became particularly important as Prakash was re-inducted into the government, following a change-of-hands between Nitish Kumar and the newly appointed Chief Minister, Samrat Choudhary.
Prakash was inducted on November 20, 2025. Then, Nitish Kumar stepped down as the chief minister on April 15, 2026, leading to the dissolution of the council of ministers. This means that, just a month before the six-month period would end, — the one in which Prakash needed to get elected in the assembly — the government and its council of ministers were dissolved.
Subsequently, on May 7, 2026, Prakash was re-inducted into the government headed by Samrat Choudhary, following a gap of 22 days.
It was in this light that the petitioner's plea argued that the six-month period had expired on May, 20 2026, without Prakash proving his credibility in the house. It argued that the reappointment was an attempt to indirectly extend the constitutionally mandated period for a non-member minister in the assembly.
Furthermore, it also pointed out that such an act undermines constitutional norms, provisions of parliamentary democracy, and also electoral accountability.
Following the Supreme court hearing on July 30, 2026, there was a major turning point in Prakash’s case. On July 30, 2026, the Supreme court asked the Bihar government on how Prakash could hold office even after six months without getting elected.
A day later, on July 31, 2026, Devesh Kumar — a nominated member of the legislative council — resigned, paving the way for Prakash to get nominated as a member of the Bihar legislative council.
Stating this, the Bihar government informed the Supreme Court that Prakash had been nominated as an Member of Legislative Council (MLC), and hence there was no constraint in his continuation as a minister.
As the debate in the apex court continued over this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state, argued to the court that the issue concerning Prakash’s induction into the government was addressed rightly through his nomination to the legislative council.
Following this, the state government also informed that Prakash had taken a fresh oath after being nominated as an MLC. However, the petitioner's counsel argued that Prakash had taken the oath as an MLC, while he was continuing as a minister in the state, therefore, the constitutional provision pertaining to this arrangements have already been breached.
This case presents a classic example of how the nuances of a constitutional-legal arrangement play out in the real world. It is a case study in how the constitutional provisions are being interpreted and materialized in reality.
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store