Understanding Ordinance Re-promulgation
The question concerns the Indian Supreme Court's view on the repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances, bypassing the legislative process. Article 123 (President) and Article 213 (Governor) of the Constitution allow for the promulgation of Ordinances during parliamentary/legislative recess, but these must be placed before the legislature.
Supreme Court's Stance on Ordinance Abuse
The Supreme Court has consistently examined the constitutional validity of Ordinances. The repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without presenting them to the legislature circumvents the legislative authority and accountability.
Key Ruling on "Fraud on the Constitution"
In the case of Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court critically addressed the issue of successive repromulgation of Ordinances. The Court observed that such actions undermine the constitutional scheme and can be considered an abuse of power.
The Court emphasized that the power to issue an Ordinance is essentially an executive power, not a parallel legislative power. Relying on previous judgments, including D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, the Court highlighted that persistent re-promulgation, without legislative scrutiny, amounts to a "fraud on the Constitution" because it avoids the essential legislative function and democratic oversight.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, strongly condemned the practice of repeatedly re-promulgating Ordinances, referring to it as a "fraud on the Constitution," thereby reinforcing constitutional principles.
Important Questions from Mixed Topic (AIBE)
- Directions : The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).
Assertion (A) : The Constitution of India does not adopt a rigid separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
Reason (R) : The constitutional framework incorporates a system of checks and balances, allowing limited functional overlap among the organs of the State.
In the context of the Constitution of India, which one of the following is correct ? - "The rules of natural justice were not confined to the narrow precincts of the prevailing definition of quasi-judicial functions." This principle was laid down in which case ?
- Ajeet Singh, a famous singer, enters into a contract with Yash Aditya Music Company agreeing to perform exclusively for them for 2 years and not to perform for any other company during that period. After one year, Ajeet Singh refuses to perform for Yash Aditya Music Company and begins performing for BR Chopra & Company. Yash Aditya Music Company files a suit seeking an injunction restraining Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra & Company.
Which of the following statements is correct under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? - Under the Patents Act, 1970, a patent is granted to an inventor in India. Which of the following correctly reflects a limitation on the patentee's rights under the law ?
Directions : The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).
Assertion (A) : An ex parte decree may be set aside if the defendant satisfies the court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Reason (R) : Under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court must be satisfied that the summons was not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Mark your answer as :
