The document discusses the President's power to promulgate ordinances according to Article 123 of the Indian Constitution. It states that the President can promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session and circumstances require immediate action. Any ordinances must be placed before Parliament within 6 weeks and will cease to be effective if disapproved by resolutions of both Houses. The President's satisfaction that circumstances require an ordinance is determined on the advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot be challenged in courts. Ordinances have the same force as acts of Parliament but must not violate any fundamental rights.
The document discusses the President's power to promulgate ordinances according to Article 123 of the Indian Constitution. It states that the President can promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session and circumstances require immediate action. Any ordinances must be placed before Parliament within 6 weeks and will cease to be effective if disapproved by resolutions of both Houses. The President's satisfaction that circumstances require an ordinance is determined on the advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot be challenged in courts. Ordinances have the same force as acts of Parliament but must not violate any fundamental rights.
The document discusses the President's power to promulgate ordinances according to Article 123 of the Indian Constitution. It states that the President can promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session and circumstances require immediate action. Any ordinances must be placed before Parliament within 6 weeks and will cease to be effective if disapproved by resolutions of both Houses. The President's satisfaction that circumstances require an ordinance is determined on the advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot be challenged in courts. Ordinances have the same force as acts of Parliament but must not violate any fundamental rights.
The document discusses the President's power to promulgate ordinances according to Article 123 of the Indian Constitution. It states that the President can promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session and circumstances require immediate action. Any ordinances must be placed before Parliament within 6 weeks and will cease to be effective if disapproved by resolutions of both Houses. The President's satisfaction that circumstances require an ordinance is determined on the advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot be challenged in courts. Ordinances have the same force as acts of Parliament but must not violate any fundamental rights.
(xi) Ordinance-making power :- Article-123 empowers the President to
promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament. This is the most important
legislative power conferred upon the President. According to this article, when both Houses of Parliament are not in session and the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinances as the circumstances require. An Ordinance promulgated under this article has the same force as an Act passed by the Parliament. The Ordinance promulgated by the President cannot be treated as an executive order or an administrative decision. The objective behind giving power of promulgating an Ordinance is to empower the President to meet with contingencies and to deal with unforeseen or urgent matters. The President can promulgate Ordinance if the following conditions are satisfied :
(1) When both Houses of Parliament are not in session.
(2) The President should be satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action.
Power to withdraw :- Clause-(2) (b) empowers the President to withdraw it at
any time.
Power of Ordinance is Co-extensive with the power of the Parliament :-
It is noticeable point that the President may promulgate an Ordinance only in respect of that subject-matter on which the Parliament is entitled to make law. Clause-(3) of this article expressly provides that if the Ordinance is declared in respect of that subject-matter on which the Parliament is entitled to make law, the Ordinance shall be void. The Indian Constitution establishes the welfare State and confers the law-making power upon the Parliament. The law can be made by the Parliament only if both the Houses of Parliament are in session. The welfare of the common people cannot be sacrificed merely on this basis that the Houses of the Parliament are not in session. Thus, the Constitution of India empowers the President to promulgate the Ordinance if need arises and both Houses of Parliament or any House of Parliament is not in session.
The Ordinance must be laid before both Houses of Parliament :- Clause-2 (a) of this article provides that the Ordinance promulgated by the President shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament. It means, the Ordinance shall cease to operate at the expiry of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament if it has not been laid before both Houses of Parliament. If before the expiration of six weeks the resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, it shall cease to operate upon passing of the second of those resolutions. But, if both Houses of Parliament have approved such Ordinance, it will become law. The explanation attached to this article makes it clear that if the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates.
Satisfaction of the President :- Article-123 provides that the President may
promulgate the Ordinance if he is satisfied that the circumstances require for it. The President exercises this power on the advice of the Council of Ministers, therefore, the satisfaction of the President is the satisfaction of the Council of Minister in real sense. In the case of T. Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P. (1985 SCC), the Supreme Court has held that the Court cannot inquire into the reasons for his satisfaction or the sufficiency of the reasons. The propriety expediency and necessity of a legislative act are for the determination of the legislative authority and are not for determination by the Courts. In the case of Nagraj v. State of A.P. (AIR 1985 SC) the Supreme Court has held that the Ordinance promulgated by the President is regarded as a legislative act and, therefore, it cannot be invalidated on the ground that the President did not apply his mind to its provisions before promulgating it. The Court said that an executive act may be declared invalid on the ground of non-application of mind but legislative act cannot be declared invalid on the ground of non-application of mind. In the case of R.K. Garg v. Union of India (AIR 1981SC) the Supreme Court has held that the President is competent to issue an ordinance amending or altering the tax law. In the case of A.K.Roy v. Union of India (AIR 1982SC) the Supreme Court has held that the Ordinance would be subject to the test of vagueness, arbitrariness, reasonableness, and public interest. In the case of D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987 SCC), the Supreme Court has held that the re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the legislature in routine manner would be fraud on the Constitution, subversion of the democratic process and colourable exercise of powers.
Ordinance must not be contrary to the fundamental rights :- Ordinance is
deemed as a law, therefore, it must not be voilative of fundamental right. If the Ordinance is inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights, it shall be void. In the cases of Sat Pal & Co. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (AIR1979 SC), and A.K. Roy v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC), the Supreme Court has held that the Ordinance can be challenged on the ground that it contravenes any of the fundamental rights. ‘‘””
