Court reaffirms that the title of Deputy Chief Minister is purely descriptive without conferring superior powers; emphasizes PILs must protect public interest, not personal agendas
The Orissa High Court, in a recent judgment dated September 7, 2026, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Eleena Dash challenging the constitutional validity and privileges attached to the designation of Deputy Chief Minister in the state government. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash underscored that the nomenclature of Deputy Chief Minister is merely descriptive and does not confer any superior powers or privileges over other members of the Council of Ministers, thereby reaffirming settled Supreme Court precedents.
The petitioner contended that the designation of Deputy Chief Minister placed the officeholder on a higher pedestal than other ministers, with special privileges in protocol and precedence, allegedly violating Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution of India which govern the Council of Ministers and their powers. The challenge also drew from a recent Odisha Ministers' Salaries and Allowances (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was later withdrawn, but purportedly created an impression of unequal treatment of Deputy Chief Ministers.
However, the court noted that the post of Deputy Chief Minister has always been understood as a mere descriptive title without any substantive authority over other ministers. The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court ruling in K.M. Sharma v. Shri Devi Lal (AIR 1990 SC 528), which held that the designation does not confer any special powers or hierarchy beyond the Council of Ministers. Furthermore, the court explained that the Table of Precedence or Warrant of Precedence, whether issued by the President's Secretariat or the State Government, serves only ceremonial and protocol purposes and does not affect governance or decision-making powers.
The Orissa High Court also referred to a similar decision by the Karnataka High Court in Dr. Sekhar S. Iyer v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka (ILR 2019 KAR 1), which held that PILs challenging the Deputy Chief Minister's designation were frivolous and without merit.
Importantly, the court expressed strong disapproval of the misuse of the PIL mechanism, emphasizing that PILs should be instruments to protect the rights of disadvantaged and oppressed persons rather than vehicles for personal, political, or publicity-driven agendas. The judgment warned advocates against filing frivolous PILs and urged them to raise genuine issues affecting public interest.
In concluding the judgment, the court dismissed the petition and cautioned the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, to refrain from indulging in such frivolous litigation in the future, thereby preserving judicial resources for authentic public causes.
This decision reinforces the constitutional understanding of ministerial roles and highlights the judiciary's vigilance in preventing the abuse of public interest remedies.
Bottom Line:
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Misuse of PIL remedy discouraged - Nomenclature of Deputy Chief Minister is descriptive and does not confer any superior powers over other members of the Council of Ministers.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 163, 164 of the Constitution of India; Odisha Ministers' Salaries and Allowances (Amendment) Bill, 2025
Eleena Dash v. State of Odisha, (Orissa)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2976752
