Cuttack: The designation of deputy chief minister is only a descriptive title and does not give the holder any constitutional powers or status above other ministers, the Orissa high court has ruled. A bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash made the observation while dismissing a PIL filed by practising advocate Eleena Dash, who had questioned the designation of deputy chief ministers and the special protocol allegedly extended to them.The judgment, passed on Sept 7 and uploaded online on Thursday, said the position of deputy chief minister is part of the council of ministers and cannot be treated as a separate or superior constitutional post. “There is no scintilla of doubt in our mind” that the nomenclature of Deputy Chief Minister is “mere descriptive and an integral part of the council of ministers”, the bench said. While advocate general Pitambar Acharya represented the state, advocates Srinivas Mohanty and Kabita Patra argued on behalf of the petitioner.The petitioner had challenged the perceived higher status given to the two deputy chief ministers in the state, particularly in protocol matters. She had also referred to the Odisha Ministers’ Salaries and Allowances (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which proposed revision of salaries and other benefits of the chief minister and council of ministers before being withdrawn.The bench clarified that the Table of Precedence or Warrant of Precedence issued by President’s Secretariat and state govt is meant only for ceremonial purposes. Such precedence, it said, neither gives a deputy chief minister powers superior to other ministers nor changes the constitutional scheme under Articles 163 and 164. “It has nothing to do with the governance by exercising powers superior to the Council of Ministers,” the court said, adding that the arrangement only facilitates ceremonial functions organised by the Centre and states.The bench also cautioned against misuse of PILs, saying such cases must be approached with “great caution and circumspection” to prevent personal gain, private malice, vested interests or publicity-seeking. The court said the issue raised in the petition had already been settled by the Supreme Court, which had held that the deputy chief minister designation is merely descriptive and does not confer additional constitutional powers.Dismissing the PIL, the bench described it as being filed on a “specious ground” and a “sheer wastage of the special remedy in the Public Interest”. Though it considered imposing costs, the court refrained from doing so as the petitioner is a practising advocate. It advised her to henceforth raise genuine causes involving infringement of rights of disadvantaged persons rather than indulge in frivolous litigation.
