Can electoral convenience be presented as social service to justify nomination of Deepak Prakash, son of Union Minister Upendra Kushwaha as MLC under Article 171 of Constitution of India?

In Prince Kumar Ojha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Joint Registrar (List) Patna High Court granted permission to file PIL vide order dated October 15, 2026. The other respondents are:2. The Principal Secretary to the Governor of Bihar, 3. The Principal Secretary, Election Department, Government of Bihar, 4. The Chief Electoral Officer-cum-Secretary, Election Department, Government of Bihar and 5. Deepak Prakash, Nominated Member of the Bihar Legislative Council (MLC). The case is listed for order before the Chief Justice on November 18, 2026.  The petitioner has argued that his nomination violates Articles 171(3)(e) and 171(5) of the Constitution, which restrict Legislative Council nominations to specific fields such as social service, literature, science, art, and the cooperative movement, rather than serving as political rehabilitation.

Deepak Prakash was appointed as a member of Legislative Council on August 5, 2026 by Bihar Governor Syed Ata Hasnain to fill the vacancy following the resignation of Devesh Kumar. Devesh was made to resign as member of Legislative Council on July 31, 2026. 

Earlier, in Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors.(2026), Supreme Court's 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice V Mohana on July 30, 2026 while hearing a petition, had asked the Bihar government as to how Deepak Prakash, an unelected minister, can hold the position even after six months after assuming office. He was first sworn in as Bihar’s Panchayati Raj Minister on November 20, 2025, in the Council of Ministers headed by then Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. At the time, he was not a member of either the Bihar Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. After the resignation and dissolution of the Nitish Kumar-led Cabinet, NDA leader Samrat Choudhary assumed office as Bihar Chief Minister on April 15. Prakash consequently ceased to be a Minister and remained out of the Council of Ministers. After a gap of around 22 days, Prakash was re-inducted into the Cabinet and sworn in again as Panchayati Raj Minister on May 7, despite still not being an elected legislator. The petitioner had contended that Deepak Prakash had already utilised approximately four months and 26 days of the six-month period permitted under Article 164(4) of the Constitution for a person who is not a member of the State Legislature to continue as a Minister. The six-month period had  expired on May 19. The petitioner had argued that Deepak Prakash’s resignation and subsequent reappointment could not be used to reset or extend the constitutional time limit.

The PIL in the High Court was filed on September 24, 2026 and registered on October 27, 2026. It challenges the nomination of Deepak Prakash as a MLC. The PIL has alleged that the nomination of Prakash violates Article 171(3)(e) and Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India. The PIL seeks issuance of a writ of quo warranto, calling Deepak Prakash to show under what circumstances he occupies the public office of a nominated MLC. It has also sought a writ of certiorari quashing the notification through which he was nominated as MLC. 

The petitioner has pointed out that Article 171(5) restricts nominations to the Legislative Council to persons possessing special knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art, the cooperative movement and social service. The petitioner has submitted that Prakash does not fulfill the constitutional requirement for nomination under Article 171(3)(e), which a person must posses the prescribed special knowledge or practical experience in the five exhaustive fields. The PIL has submitted that the constitutional intent behind Article 171 is not to create a ‘backdoor’ entry for active political personalities into the Legislative Council.