The designation of Deputy Chief Minister is merely descriptive and does not confer any powers, privileges or substantive authority superior to those enjoyed by other members of the Council of Ministers, the Orissa High Court has observed, underlining that the constitutional position of a Deputy Chief Minister remains that of a minister.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash said the Table of Precedence or Warrant of Precedence, which places a Deputy Chief Minister at a higher position for ceremonial purposes, cannot be interpreted as creating a substantive hierarchy within the Council of Ministers or conferring additional executive powers.
The observation came while dealing with a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by practising legal professional Eleena Dash, who had challenged the descriptive nomenclature of Deputy Chief Ministers and alleged that the higher protocol and precedence accorded to them violated Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution.
The court made it clear that ceremonial precedence has no bearing on the distribution of constitutional powers within the state government.
“The nomenclature as Deputy Chief Minister is mere descriptive and an integral part of the Council of Ministers,” the bench observed in its order uploaded on Thursday.
The petitioner had questioned the position of Deputy Chief Ministers, arguing that they were being placed on a higher pedestal than other ministers in terms of protocol, precedence and privileges.
The petition also relied on the Odisha Ministers’ Salaries and Allowances (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which had proposed revisions to the salaries and emoluments of the Chief Minister and other ministers but was subsequently withdrawn.
The petitioner alleged that although the post of Deputy Chief Minister was merely descriptive, it was being used to confer superior protocol and privileges and that this amounted to an attempt to create a “pseudo-three-tier governance model”.
Rejecting the argument, the bench said the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court in K M Sharma vs Shri Devi Lal, where the apex court held that a person described as Deputy Prime Minister remained a minister like other members of the Council of Ministers and that the description did not confer any powers of the Prime Minister.
The Orissa High Court also referred to the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Dr Sekhar S Iyer vs Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, which had dealt with a similar challenge to the designation of Deputy Chief Minister.
The Karnataka High Court had held that the mere description of a minister as Deputy Chief Minister neither conferred the powers of the Chief Minister nor resulted in any constitutional violation.
“There was therefore no ambiguity regarding the constitutional status of a Deputy Chief Minister. The office-holder remains part of the Council of Ministers and derives powers within the same constitutional framework as other ministers,” the order stated.
The bench also explained that the Warrant of Precedence should not be confused with the substantive hierarchy of executive authority.
The system of precedence, which has its origins in the need to regulate ceremonial interactions, is intended to ensure the orderly conduct of official functions.
“After independence, the Warrant of Precedence was adopted in the republican framework to preserve the protocol for ceremonial purposes,” the court observed.
Such precedence, it added, “does not create any distinction in exercise of powers, substantive hierarchy of authority in a decision making process”.
The court said this principle applied equally to the Table of Precedence issued by the President’s Secretariat and the corresponding table issued by the Odisha government.
A higher ceremonial position for a Deputy Chief Minister, therefore, cannot be construed as giving the office-holder powers superior to those of other members of the Council of Ministers.
The High Court dismissed the PIL and sounded a strong caution against the misuse of PIL, stressing that the extraordinary jurisdiction of constitutional courts must be exercised with care.
