Skip to main content

Ordinance making power U/a 123 and 223

 ORDINANCE MAKING POWER UNDER ARTICLE 123 AND 223

BY: Bishrant Khatiwada, SLS ,Pune, Email: bishrantkhatiwada0@gmail.com

An ordinance is a legislation that the President of India enacts only while the Indian parliament is not in session. On the suggestion of the union cabinet, the president signs an ordinance. Similarly, in a unicameral legislature, the governor can only begin ordinances when the legislative assembly is not in session, and in a bicameral legislature, the governor can only introduce ordinances when both the legislative assembly and the legislative council are not in session. 

ORDINANCE MAKING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT

The President's ability to issue ordinances is covered in Article 123. This is one of the several legislative authorities that the president possesses. When either of the two Houses of Parliament is not in session, Article 123 of the Indian Constitution gives the President the right to publish ordinances. As a result, the ordinances will not be able to be passed in Parliament. According to PanditH NKunzru (who was part in the drafting of the Indian Constitution), the primary rationale for giving the administration the ability to promulgate ordinances was "to cope with circumstances when an emergency in the country needed immediate action."

In case of T. venkata Reddy V. state of AP, the supreme court held that since the presidential ordinance making power which is listed in article 123 and 213 of Indian constitution is of a legislative character which can be seen as a sort of exercising the legislative power, so it cannot be questioned on grounds of motives or non-application of mind or on grounds of its propriety, expediency and necessity.

The exercise of ordinance can be challenged, under such circumstances which has established the president that the president has not acted bona-fide. But in case one house or both of the houses of the parliament are prolonged deliberately with a certain view to enable the president of India to promulgate ordinance, the exercise of the power by the president cannot be called fraudulent or mala-fide. 

An ordinance must be transformed into law within 42 days after the start of the Parliament session. Only three times may an ordinance be re-promulgated. When the state legislative assembly is not in session, the governor of the state can promulgate ordinances under Article 213 of the Indian Constitution. The ability of the President and Governor to issue ordinances has been the subject of several critical arguments. Significant problems have been raised regarding judicial scrutiny of the executive's ordinance-making powers; the need for 'rapid action' when promulgating an ordinance; and the executive's grant of ordinance-making powers, given the concept of separation of powers.

The ordinance making power under the constitution of India enlisted on Article 123, is subject to some restrictions as the power of parliament to make laws, thus the president of India can make ordinance on some maters enlisted on Schedule VII of the Constitution. 

In case of A.K. Roy V. Union of Inia, the power of president to issue an ordinance under article 123 was questioned with regards to national security. The SC held that the judicial review of the president’s satisfaction regarding the necessity to issue an ordinance is not totally excluded. That satisfaction of the president of india cannot be regarded as a purely political question and its judicial review. Ordinances that are regularly published and reissued, on the other hand, contravene the spirit of the Constitution and lead to an undesirable 'ordinance raj.' 

I believe that enacting ordinances at times other than emergencies is not a healthy trend, based on my understanding of the subject. The opposition must show maturity and refrain from disrupting Parliamentary processes. Parliamentary time should be used wisely to examine and debate important issues and determine the fate of bills.

An ordinance can be challenged on following grounds:

  1. If the ordinance passed contains colourable legislation

  2. If the ordinance contravenes with any of the fundamental rights mentioned in the constitution of India

  3. If it violated substantive provisions of the constitution such as Article 301 of Indian Constitution

  4. If the ordinance passed id retrospectively unconstitutional

Ordinances, on the other hand, are framed by the executive branch, which is described as a single, united institution. The President is the leader of the executive branch, which issues ordinances based on the recommendation of the ministerial council. The 'necessity to take prompt action' is the most critical prerequisite for the ordinances to be promulgated. When there is a genuine requirement or urgency to promulgate the Ordinances, there will be no problem in verifying the President's pleasure.

In a famous case related to ordinance, D.C. Wadha V. State of Bihar wherein misuse of powers under Article 123 and 213, it was observed that, "The ability to enact an ordinance is intended to address a unique issue; it should not be used to further an individual's political goals." Though it is against democratic norms for an administration to write laws, the President is given this authority to deal with emergencies, thus it should be constrained at some point."

The power of judicial review of ordinances was revisited in 1998 in the case of Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar, in which the Supreme Court struck down a number of ordinances on the grounds that no particular basis for the exercise of the President's ordinance-making power had been demonstrated. "There was also no rationale presented for promulgating one law after another," it added.

Most of the time, the power to make ordinances is a contentious issue that is debated. It attempts to upset the balance of executive and legislative powers by introducing an element of arbitrariness into the Constitutional System and undermining the rule of law. When an Executive body wields such ordinance-making authority, it indicates a contempt for the legislative. Only a few grounds have been presented thus far to contest the Ordinances' validity: (a.) directly contravenes a constitutional requirement; (b.) the president has exceeded his constitutional authority; and (c.) the president has made a colourable use of his authority.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more