Enquire Now

Blog Details

Polity

The frequent promulgation of ordinances is detrimental for a constitutional democracy.

·        The ordinance-making power within the Constitution isnt a necessary feature of the westminster type of parliamentary democracy that india has adopted.

·        It may be a relic of the govt of india Act, 1935 that was even so retained by the Constituent Assembly.

·        Separation of powers between the legislature, executive and Judiciary: In india, the central and state legislatures are liable for law creating, the central and state governments are responsible for the implementation of laws and also the judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts and lower courts) interprets these laws.

·        However, there are many overlaps within the functions and powers of the 3 institutions.

·        For example, the President has certain legislative and judicial functions and also the legislature will delegate some of its functions to the manager within the kind of subordinate legislation.

·        Ordinance creating powers of the President Article 123 of the Constitution grants the President certain law making powers to promulgate Ordinances when either of the 2 homes of Parliament isnt in session and thus its impossible to enact laws within the Parliament.

·        An Ordinance could relate to any subject that the Parliament has the ability to pass law on.

·        Conversely, its the same limitations because the Parliament to legislate, given the distribution of powers between the Union, State and coinciding Lists.

·        Thus, the subsequent limitations exist with consider to the Ordinance creating power of the executive:

1. legislative assembly isnt in session: The President will only promulgate an Ordinance once either of the 2 homes of Parliament isnt in session.

2. Immediate action is required: The President cannot promulgate an Ordinance unless hes satisfied that there are circumstances that need taking ‘immediate action’

3. Parliamentary approval during session: Ordinances should be approved by Parliament within six weeks of reassembling or they shall cease to control.

·        They will cease to control just in case resolutions unfavorable  the Ordinance are gone by each the homes.

·        Figure one shows the number of Ordinances that are promulgated in india since 1990.

·        The largest number of Ordinances was promulgated in 1993, and there has been a decline within the range of Ordinance promulgated since then.

·        However, the past year has seen an increase within the number of Ordinances declare.

·        Ordinance making powers of the Governor even as the President of india is constitutionally mandated to issue Ordinances under Article 123, the Governor of a state will issue Ordinances under Article 213, once the state general assembly (or either of the 2 homes in states with bicameral legislatures) isnt in session.

·        The powers of the President and therefore the Governor are loosely comparable with regard to Ordinance making.

·        However, the Governor cannot issue an Ordinance while not instructions from the President in 3 cases wherever the assent of the President would are needed to pass the same Bill vital Cases Supreme court cases Judgement RC Cooper vs.

·        Union of india,1970 In RC Cooper vs. Union of india (1970) the Supreme Court, whereas examining the constitutionality of the Banking companies (Acquisition of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969 that sought to nationalise fourteen of India’s largest industrial banks, held that the President’s decision may be challenged on the grounds that ‘immediate action’ wasnt required; and also the Ordinance had been passed primarily to by-pass debate and discussion within the legislative assembly.

·        38 Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975 Inserted a new clause (4) in Article 123 stating that the President’s satisfaction while promulgating an Ordinance was final and could not be questioned in any court on any ground.

·        44 Constitutional Amendment Act,1977 Deleted clause (4) inserted by the 38 CAA and therefore reopened the possibility for the judicial review of the President’s decision to promulgate an Ordinance.

·        AK Roy vs. Union of india, 1980 In AK Roy vs. Union of india (1982) whereas examining the constitutionality of the National Security Ordinance, 1980, that sought to supply for preventive detention in bound cases, the Court argued that the President’s Ordinance creating power isnt beyond the scope of judicial review.

·        However, it didnt explore the problem further as there was deficient proof before it and also the Ordinance was replaced by an Act.

·        It also pointed out the requirement to exercise judicial review over the President’s decision only if there have been substantial grounds to challenge the decision, and not at “every casual and spending challenge”.

·        T Venkata Reddy vs. State of andhra pradesh, 1985 In T Venkata Reddy vs. State of andhra pradesh (1985), whereas deliberating on the promulgation of the andhra pradesh abolishment of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984 that abolished certain village level posts, the Court reiterated that the Ordinance creating power of the President and also the Governor was a legislative power, comparable to the legislative power of the Parliament and state legislatures respectively.

·        This implies that the motives behind the exercise of this power cant be questioned, even as is that the case with legislation by the Parliament and state legislatures.

·        DC Wadhwa vs. State of bihar, 1987 t was argued in DC Wadhwa vs. State of bihar (1987) the legislative power of the chief to promulgate Ordinances is to be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a substitute for the law creating power of the legislative assembly.

·        Here, the court was examining a case wherever a state government (under the authority of the Governor) continuing to re-promulgate ordinances, that is, it repeatedly issued new Ordinances to replace the old ones, rather than laying them before the state legislative assembly.

·        A total of 259 Ordinances were re-promulgated, some of them for as long as fourteen years.

·        The Supreme Court argued that if Ordinance creating was created a usual practice, making an ‘Ordinance raj’ the courts may strike down re-promulgated Ordinances.

Share:

Comments