The New Indian Express ·
Dy CM is just name, not constitutional position, clears Orissa HC
CUTTACK: The designation of deputy chief minister does not place a person above other members of the Council of Ministers, the Orissa High Court has ruled, dismissing a PIL challenging the perceived special status and protocol extended to the two deputy CMs in the state.
A two-judge bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, in its judgement uploaded online on Thursday, said the term “Deputy Chief Minister” is merely descriptive and does not create a separate constitutional position with powers superior to those of other ministers.
The PIL was filed by practising legal professional Eleena Dash, who questioned the nomenclature and alleged that deputy chief ministers were being placed on a higher pedestal than other members of the Council of Ministers, particularly in matters of protocol.
The petitioner had referred to the Odisha Ministers’ Salaries and Allowances (Amendment) Bill, 2025, through which the state government had proposed changes in the salaries, emoluments and perks of the chief minister and other ministers. The Bill was subsequently withdrawn.
The bench said there was “no scintilla of doubt” that the nomenclature of deputy chief minister is “mere descriptive and an integral part of the Council of Ministers”.
It clarified that the Table of Precedence or Warrant of Precedence issued by the President’s Secretariat and the state government is meant only for ceremonial purposes. Such precedence, it said, does not confer any additional constitutional powers, rights or privileges on a deputy chief minister over the Council of Ministers under Articles 163 and 164.
The court said the precedence arrangements were intended only to ensure the smooth conduct of ceremonial functions organised by the Centre and states and had no bearing on the actual exercise of executive power.
Referring to the nature of PILs, the bench cautioned that such proceedings must be handled with great caution and circumspection to prevent their misuse for personal gain, private malice, vested interests or publicity.
The court noted that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court, which had held that the designation of deputy chief minister is merely descriptive and does not override or confer powers beyond the constitutional scheme.
Dismissing the PIL, the bench observed that it had been filed on a specious ground and amounted to a sheer wastage of the special remedy in the public interest.
Though the court considered imposing costs, it refrained from doing so as the petitioner is a practising advocate. It advised her to henceforth use PILs to “raise a genuine cause for the disadvantaged person” rather than pursue frivolous litigation.
Advocate general Pitambar Acharya represented the state, while advocates Srinivas Mohanty and Kabita Patra appeared on the petitioner’s behalf.