The designation Deputy Chief Minister is merely descriptive and confers no superior constitutional powers.

The petitioner, describing herself as a public-spirited person and practising legal professional, filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity and implications of designating certain Ministers as “Deputy Chief Ministers”.

The petition relied substantially on a newspaper report, the Odisha Ministers’ Salaries and Allowances (Amendment) Bill, 2025—which was subsequently withdrawn—and the Tables/Warrants of Precedence issued by the President’s Secretariat and the Government of Odisha.

Whether the designation “Deputy Chief Minister” creates a constitutional office or confers powers, privileges or authority superior to those of other members of the Council of Ministers, contrary to Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution.

Whether the Table/Warrant of Precedence placing a Deputy Chief Minister above other Ministers creates a substantive governmental hierarchy or unconstitutional distinction.

Whether the PIL was maintainable and justified when the challenge was founded principally on a newspaper report, perception and a withdrawn legislative Bill.

Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution govern the Council of Ministers and do not create a constitutionally superior office of Deputy Chief Minister merely through nomenclature.

In K.M. Sharma v. Shri Devi Lal, AIR 1990 SC 528, the Supreme Court held that a Deputy Chief Minister is legally only a member of the Council of Ministers; the description does not confer the powers of the Chief Minister, and a descriptive designation does not invalidate the constitutional oath when its substantive requirements are fulfilled.

Tables or Warrants of Precedence are intended for ceremonial and protocol purposes and do not establish substantive authority, decision-making power or governmental hierarchy.

The Court found that the petitioner’s challenge proceeded from a misconception that the descriptive title “Deputy Chief Minister” altered the constitutional position of the office-holder.

Applying K.M. Sharma, it held that a Deputy Chief Minister remains an ordinary member of the Council of Ministers and acquires no powers of the Chief Minister merely because of the designation.

The alleged distinction based on protocol was also rejected because the Table of Precedence operates only in ceremonial settings and does not affect substantive powers, privileges or authority under Articles 163 and 164.

The Table/Warrant of Precedence was held to be confined to ceremonial protocol and incapable of creating an unconstitutional governmental hierarchy.

The PIL was dismissed as having no legal merit.

Although the Court found the petition to be founded on a specious ground and a waste of the special PIL remedy, it refrained from imposing costs, while cautioning the petitioner to raise genuine causes involving infringement of constitutional or fundamental rights of disadvantaged persons.