The Orissa High Court on Thursday, August 27, 2026, heard arguments and reserved its verdict in a Public Interest Litigation questioning the constitutional validity of appointing Bharatiya Janata Party leaders Kanak Vardhan Singh Deo and Pravati Parida as Deputy Chief Ministers of Odisha following the 2024 Assembly elections.
The petition was filed by advocate Eleena Dash, who contended that the creation of the Deputy Chief Minister posts constitutes an extra-constitutional three-tier hierarchy within the Council of Ministers, comprising Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Ministers and other Ministers, which lacks any basis in the Constitution.
Advocate Srinivas Mohanty, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution provide only for a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Governor, with the Chief Minister at its head, and contain no stipulation or empowerment for the appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers. He argued that the State Government had attempted to introduce a position not recognised by the constitutional scheme.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Harish Tandon, presiding over the Division Bench with Justice Chittaranjan Dash, repeatedly observed that, irrespective of the designation, the individuals appointed as Deputy Chief Ministers are essentially part of the Council of Ministers. He noted that, except for the Chief Minister, there is no constitutional prescription regarding the designation of other Ministers, who are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister under Article 164.
The Chief Justice specifically queried whether any constitutional prohibition exists barring the appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers, seeking clarification on the limits of executive discretion in ministerial designations.
The State, represented by Advocate General Pitambar Acharya, defended the appointments, asserting that Deputy Chief Ministers are merely part of the Council of Ministers and that the absence of an express constitutional stipulation for the post does not render the appointment unconstitutional or illegal.
To substantiate this position, the Advocate General cited judicial precedents from the Rajasthan High Court in Om Prakash Solanki v. Special Secretary His Excellency Governor of The State of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors (2024), which relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in K.M. Sharma v. Devi Lal & Ors (1990), the Bombay High Court in Devidas v. Shri Gopinath Mundhe & Ors (1995), and the Karnataka High Court in Dr. Sekhar S. Iyer v. Chief Secretary & Ors (2018). These courts had uniformly held that describing a person as Deputy Prime Minister or Deputy Chief Minister does not constitute a constitutional violation, and such individuals retain the status of Ministers.
The Advocate General further relied upon an order passed by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in Public Political Party v. Union of India (2024), which observed that a Deputy Chief Minister is first and foremost remains a Minister in the State Government, and that the appellation of Deputy Chief Minister does not breach the constitutional requirement that a Minister must, within a stipulated period, become a member of the legislature to qualify for office.
Based on these authorities, the Advocate General characterised the petition as frivolous and urged the Court to dismiss it, additionally requesting the imposition of heavy exemplary costs on the petitioner to deter what he described as vexatious Public Interest Litigations.
In response, Advocate Mohanty maintained that despite the State’s claim of parity, Deputy Chief Ministers are being accorded heightened status, privileges and protocol compared to other Ministers. He offered to file an affidavit to substantiate this allegation of differential treatment.
He further criticised the State’s use of public exchequer to functionaries occupying extra-constitutional posts and requested the Court to presume ill-intention on the part of the Government in creating such positions. In support of this presumption, he referred to the Odisha Legislative Assembly Members' Salary, Allowances and Pension (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which had been introduced to substantially increase MLAs’ remunerations and was itself pending judicial scrutiny.
The Division Bench, after hearing the arguments from both sides, reserved its order on the matter, indicating that a final verdict would be delivered at a later date. The court did not issue any interim directions or observations beyond those exchanged during the hearing.