DMPQ: Do you think ordinance is a source of concern and it should be removed from our constitution? (Polity)

by

Article 123 of the constitution grants power to President to promulgate ordinance if he/she feels conditions are necessary for a law, provided the parliament is not in session.

 

SO it is a extraordinary power which shall be utilised in rare situation. The concerns raised against the ordinance is that its frequent use and repromulgation of ordinance. It has been seen as a tool to bypass the parliamentary procedures. So it is anti to the tenets of representative democracy and disturb the separation of power.

Above concerns are valid to a certain extent but cannot be the substantive grounds for removal of ordinance provisions because:

  1. Constitution itself provides a check on its misuse. An ordinance has to be laid
    Join Our Telegram Channel
    75.5c-23.5 6.3-42 24.9-48.3 48.6-11.4 42.9-11.4 132.3-11.4 132.3s0 89.4 11.4 132.3c6.3 23.7 24.8 41.5 48.3 47.8C117.2 448 288 448 288 448s170.8 0 213.4-11.5c23.5-6.3 42-24.2 48.3-47.8 11.4-42.9 11.4-132.3 11.4-132.3s0-89.4-11.4-132.3zm-317.5 213.5V175.2l142.7 81.2-142.7 81.2z"/> Subscribe on YouTube
in the parliament after 6 weeks of its assembly. Hence ordinance can remain for 6months and 6 weeks maximum.
  • Constitutional amendment cannot be done via ordinance.
  • In AK roy vs Union Of India (1982), the court argued that president ordinance making power is subjected to judicial review.
  • In D C Wadhwa vs state of Bihar, the SC held that courts could strike down re-promulgated ordinance. Same judgement was passed recently in the case of Krishna Kumar Vs state of Bihar case.

    •  

    WBPCS  Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for WBPCS  Prelims and WBPCS  Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by WBPCS  Notes are as follows:- For any doubt, Just leave us a Chat or Fill us a querry––
    error: Content is protected !!