ELEENA DASH vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
WP(C)/19554/2026
ODHC010397032026
2026:OHC:111-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 19554 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010397032026
Eleena Dash Petitioner
….
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate
Ms. K. Patra, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General &
Mr. Saswat Das,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
HON’BLE
J U D G M E N T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 07 September, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
“ It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the
legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of
misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public
W.P.(C) No. 19554 of 2026 Page 1 of 9
interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to
promote a personal, business or political agenda.”
In Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India,
(2018) 6 SCC 72
1.
Claiming herself to be a public spirited person and a
practising legal professional, the petitioner has filed the instant
Public Interest Litigation raising a concern on the descriptive
nomenclature in the echelon of governance by a majoritarian
elected through a democratic process.
2. The petitioner has frowned upon the designation of
Deputy Chief Ministers by placing them into a higher pedestal
than the Council of Ministers and extending special privilege in
protocol, the precedence and the power to be exercised being
violative of Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution of India.
3.
The quintessence of the Public Interest Litigation is laid
upon the Odisha Ministers’ Salaries and Allowances (Amendment)
Bill, 2025, where the Government intended to revise the salaries
and emoluments or perks of the Chief Minister as well as the other
Council of Ministers, but subsequently the same was withdrawn.
Despite the bill having been withdrawn, the presumptive
impression is sought to be projected as if the Deputy Chief
W.P.(C) No. 19554 of 2026 Page 2 of 9
Minister is treated differently than the other Council of Ministers,
which runs counter to the spirit and ethos of Articles 163 and 164
of the Constitution of India.
4. The instant Public Interest Litigation petition running in
several pages is primarily founded upon a newspaper’s report and
a perception having derived therefrom that though the post of
Deputy Chief Minister being descriptive, yet it enjoins the superior
power, privilege, protocol over and above the other Council of
Ministers, who have been put into a lower pedestal, thus creating
manifest distinction amongst the Council of Ministers. The entire
Public Interest Litigation is focused on the intensive theory of
governance and the genesis of subversive design by creating a
superficial berth raising a concern in the mind of the people of the
state. Though the petitioner has admitted that the post of Deputy
Chief Minister is mere descriptive and ornamental, yet sought to
contend that it aimed to achieve Pseudo-Three-Tier governance
model with specific privileges in enjoying the superior protocol
over other Council of Ministers. The reliance is heavily placed
upon the Warrant of Precedence/ Table of Precedence of
th
Government of India issued by the Preside
nt’s Secretariat on 26
W.P.(C) No. 19554 of 2026 Page 3 of 9
th
July, 1979 and by the Government of Odisha on 28 March, 1998,
where the post of Deputy Chief Minister is placed on a higher
pedestal than other Council of Ministers.
5. A prelude to a genesis of the Table of Precedence
embraced in a democratic governance is traced from a colonial era
to streamline the ceremonial interactions aiming to avoid any
chaotic situation. After independence, the Warrant of Precedence
was adopted in the republican framework to preserve the protocol
for ceremonial purposes to maintain the administrative familiarity.
It does not create any distinction in exercise of powers, substantive
hierarchy of authority in a decision making process, but restricted
to ceremonial occasions, which would further be fortified from the
preamble of the Table of Precedence or Warrant of Precedence
issued by the President’s Secretariat as well as the State.
6. We are not trammelled with any ambiguity in the
descriptive nomenclature as Deputy Chief Minister and the power
and the supremacy exercised as the said issue has already been set
at rest in the Supreme Court judgment rendered in K.M. Sharma v.
Shri Devi Lal and others , reported in AIR 1990 SC 528 wherein it
is held the post of a Deputy Chief Minister is akin to a member of
W.P.(C) No. 19554 of 2026 Page 4 of 9
the Council of Minister and does not confer any power of the
Chief Minister. Even the oath given to a person as a Deputy Chief
Minister which is mere descriptive of a person is not violative of
the constitutional provisions and a distinction was sought to be
made between a description and the substantial part and once the
substantial part is rigorously followed, mere description would not
invalidate the oath taken in terms of the constitutional mandate in
the following:
“4. Relying on a bench decision of this Court in the
case of Virji Ram Sutaria v. Nathalal Premji Bhavadia
& Ors., [1969] 2 SCR 627, learned Attorney General
further contends that the prescribed oath should be
divided into two parts, one which is descriptive and the
other which contains the substantial part. And
according to him, as long as the substantial part is
properly followed, a mere mistake or error in the
descriptive part would not vitiate the oath.
5. This Court in the reported decision said:
"In this case, as we have already noted, the
essential requirement of Article 173 read with
Form VII-A was that the person taking the oath or
making the affirmation would bear true faith and
allegiance to the Constitution and uphold the
sovereignty and integrity of India. The words
W.P.(C) No. 19554 of 2026 Page 5 of 9
which precede this portion are merely descriptive
of the person and of his nomination as a
candidate."
6. In view of the clear statement. made by the learned
Attorney General that Respondent No. 1 is just a
Minister like other members of the Council of Ministers
though he has been described as Deputy Prime
Minister but the description of him as Deputy Prime
Minister does not confer on him any powers of the
Prime Minister, along with his other submissions, we
think the first contention raised by the petitioner has no
force. So far as the second contention is concerned, the
petitioner himself does not press it.”
7. The identical issue was raised before the Karnataka High
Court in Dr. Sekhar S. Iyer v. Chief Secretary, Government of
Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2019 KAR 01 and holding
such Public Interest Litigation to be frivolous and reminding
themselves that mere description of any Minister as Deputy Chief
Minister does not result in any unconstitutionality it is observed :-
“We are clearly of the view that with the consistent
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also of
different High Courts, it is beyond the pale of doubt
that mere description of any Minister in the Council of
Ministers as Deputy Chief Minister does not confer the
W.P.(C) No. 19554 of 2026 Page 6 of 9
person concerned with any powers of the Chief
Minister and does not result in any unconstitutionality.
That being the position, we are further clearly of the
view that there had been absolutely no justification for
filing this writ petition as a PIL.”
8. There is no scintilla of doubt in our mind on a well-nigh
principle enunciated in the above report that the nomenclature as
Deputy Chief Minister is mere descriptive and an integral part of
the Council of Ministers. The Table of Precedence or the Warrant
of Precedence issued by the President’s Secretariat and the State is
restricted to ceremonial purposes not touching upon or invading
the right, privileges and the powers exercised by the Council of
Ministers under Article 163 of the Constitution of India. It has
nothing to do with the governance by exercising powers superior
to the Council of Ministers, but only in order to ensure the smooth
running of the ceremonial functions organised by the Centre and
the State.
9. The Public Interest Litigation of such nature should be
dealt with great caution and circumspection to curb any oblique
motive, the personal gain, the private malice, vested interest and
W.P.(C) No. 19554 of 2026 Page 7 of 9
publicity-seeking. The attractive brand name of the Public Interest
Litigation cannot be used as a tool for suspicious products of
mischief and the process of the Courts should not permitted to be
misused. The Public Interest Litigation is a judgment remedy
where the constitutional courts stand as sentinel to qui vive against
the oppressed and economically stricken person whose
constitutional or other rights have been meddled with in the hands
of executives. It is aimed to protect the fundamental rights of the
disadvantageous persons and it is a constitutional obligation of the
State to fulfil such promises untrammeled with the procedural
shackles as the doors of the Court is always open for such person.
We need not intend to delve more deep into such aspect as the
issue raised in the instant Public Interest Litigation has already set
at rest by the Apex Court in holding that the nomenclature of
Deputy Chief Minister is mere descriptive and does not over
power the substantive part of the constitutional provision.
10. The instant Public Interest Litigation is thus dismissed.
11. We would be failing in our duty in not observing that the
instant Public Interest Litigation is filed on a specious ground and
sheer wastage of the special remedy in the Public Interest inviting
W.P.(C) No. 19554 of 2026 Page 8 of 9
a cost to be imposed, but bearing in mind that the petitioner is the
practising advocate, we leave the matter at this stage with the
observation that she will henceforth raise a genuine cause for the
disadvantaged person whose fundamental or constitutional rights
are infringed and not to indulge in such frivolous litigation.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Arun Mishra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:54:12
W.P.(C) No. 19554 of 2026 Page 9 of 9