Facts of the Case
The Governor of a State, acting under Article 213 of the Constitution, issued an Ordinance on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The ordinance remained in force for six weeks after the Legislative Assembly reassembled, after which it lapsed.
Instead of introducing a Bill in the State Legislature to replace the ordinance, the Government advised the Governor to re-promulgate the same ordinance repeatedly on the same subject, without placing it before the Legislative Assembly for discussion and approval.
A citizen challenged the constitutionality of this practice of successive re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative action.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the Governor has the power to issue ordinances repeatedly on the same subject after the earlier ordinance has expired.
- Whether re-promulgation of ordinances without placing them before the State Legislature violates the Constitution.
- Whether such an act amounts to bypassing the legislative process and undermining the Rule of Law.
Legal Principles Covered
A. Article 213 – Power of Governor to Issue Ordinances
- The Governor may issue an ordinance only when the State Legislature is not in session.
- The ordinance must be laid before the Legislature and ceases to operate after six weeks of its reassembly unless approved.
B. Nature of Ordinance-Making Power
- Ordinance-making power is emergency power, not ordinary legislative substitute.
- The power is temporary, intended only for urgent situations.
C. Limits on Re-Promulgation of Ordinances
- Re-promulgation is unconstitutional if it seeks to avoid legislative scrutiny.
D. Case Law
- D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987)
- The Supreme Court held that re-promulgation of ordinances without placing them before Legislature is unconstitutional.
- Ordinances cannot be used as a substitute for permanent legislation.
- Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017)
- The Court held that successive re-promulgation violates the Constitution and legislative supremacy.
- The satisfaction of the Governor must be based on necessity, not routine or political reasons.
E. Constitutional Principles
- Separation of Powers: Executive cannot act as Legislature regularly.
- Rule of Law: Laws must be created through democratic legislative process.
- Legislative Supremacy: Bills must be debated and voted on in Legislature.
Possible Judgment
The practice of successive re-promulgation of ordinances by the State Government without introducing a Bill is unconstitutional. The Governor’s ordinance-making power under Article 213 is not meant to bypass the Legislature or create parallel law-making authority in the Executive.
The Supreme Court would hold that:
- The re-promulgation is invalid and void.
- The State Government must introduce a Bill in the Legislature to replace the ordinance if continuation of the law is required.
- The use of ordinances as a permanent law-making method amounts to fraud on the Constitution.
Therefore, the successive ordinances issued in this case are unconstitutional and unenforceable.
About lawgnan
Learn the constitutional limits of ordinance-making powers under Article 213 at Lawgnan.in. Explore how re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval undermines democracy, separation of powers, and the Rule of Law. Analyze landmark judgments like D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, which declared such executive practices unconstitutional. Understand why ordinances are only temporary measures and must be replaced by legislative enactments. Visit Lawgnan.in for expert insights, case analyses, and simplified explanations on constitutional provisions shaping India’s legal and democratic governance system.
