Skip to main content

Difference between an Act, Bill, Ordinance, Rules and Regulations - By Isha

 Difference between an Act, Bill, Ordinance, Rules and Regulations – By Isha


Introduction


India is governed by a Central Government, also known as the Union Government. Like our body needs various organs to function properly, Government also has three organs to function efficiently, these are:

  1.  Legislature – It’s main work is to make laws.

  2. Executive – It implements the rules made by the legislature.

  3. Judiciary – It interprets the laws and maintains peace and order in the state.


Three Organs of the Government


  1. Parliament ( Legislature) - It consists of:

  • President

  • Lok Sabha also known as the House of People or lower house.

  • Rajya Sabha also known as Council of States or Upper House.


  1. Executive -  It consists of:

  • President

  • Vice President

  • Prime Minister and his cabinet.


  1. Judiciary – It comprises of 

  • Supreme court

  • High Courts

  • Subordinate Courts 


How a law is made and how a bill is passed?


  1. The procedure of making a law starts with a draft or a policy which contains the objectives and guidelines of the law.

  2. Now, when this draft is presented before both the houses of the Parliament for discussion this becomes a Bill.

  3. If this bill is passed by both the houses of Parliament and it receives the assent of the President then this bill becomes an Act.


Different sessions of Parliament


The Parliament of India functions in three sessions which may be extended when necessary. These sessions are:


  1. Budget Session ( End of Jan to May)

  2. Monsoon Session ( July to August)

  3. Winter Session  (November to December)


When the Parliament is not in session then this period is known as Recess and there cannot be a gap of more than 6 months between two sessions of Parliament.


What is an Ordinance?

Generally, when Parliament is not in session and if an urgent need arises to pass a law then the President at Centre under Article 123 and State Governor at State level under 213 can promulgate an ordinance.


Difference between Ordinance and Act

  • Firstly, an Act is passed through a legislative procedure by the Parliament. On the other hand, an ordinance is passed through the executive when Parliament is not in session and there is an urgent need to pass the law.

  • Secondly, the validity of an ordinance is 6 months and 6 weeks. Since an ordinance is passed when Parliament is not in Session and also time period between two sessions cannot be more than 6 months, so it is essential that as soon as the Parliament comes in Session this ordinance is presented before it.


How does an Ordinance Becomes an Act?

  • When the Parliament resumes it’s session the Ordinance is presented before the Parliament for discussion and voting.

  • If this ordinance is passed by both the house within six weeks then it becomes an Act and if it is not passed then it cease to exist.

  • This is the reason for its validity of 6 months and 6 weeks.


Difference between rules and regulations

  1. Rules

  • As discussed earlier parliament make laws and executive implement these laws.

  • So whenever an act is passed by the Parliament, rules are made for its effective implementation.

  • Therefore if an act is made by the Centre then the rules are made by the Central Government and if acts are made at the state level then rules would be made by the State Government.

Hence, acts consists of rules which provides the procedure for its implementation.


  1. Regulations

The task of implementation of some acts is vested with some statutory bodies like Reserve Bank of India, Security Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Competition Council of India (CCI) and Press Council of India. So in order to regulate themselves and function properly they make regulations.  
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to have perfor
Post a Comment
Read more

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