High Court Of Delhi
GYANENDRA KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 05/10/1996
ORDINANCE - RE-PROMULGATION - ARTICLE 123 - PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO ISSUE ORDINANCES - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - RE-PROMULGATION OF ORDINANCES DURING PARLIAMENT SESSION - VALIDITY - CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING RE-PROMULGATION - INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 123(1) AND (2).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, two practicing advocates in Delhi, challenged the actions of the respondents in re-promulgating 10 ordinances by the President of India on March 26th and 27th, 1996, which came into force on 7-4-1996. The petitioners argued that the re-promulgation was unconstitutional and beyond the scope and power under Article 123 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the action of the respondents in re-promulgating the 10 ordinances was not open to attack and dismissed the writ petition. The court found that the circumstances compelled the Government to re-promulgate the Ordinances as the Bills introduced by the Government containing the same provisions as in the Ordinances could not be debated upon and passed in the concerned sessions due to many other urgent and emergent businesses and the short duration of the Parliament.
Issues: 1. Whether the re-promulgation of the 10 ordinances by the President of India was unconstitutional and beyond the scope and power under Article 123 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the circumstances existed which rendered it necessary for the President to take immediate action by way of re-promulgation of the Ordinances?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Article 123(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India and held that the power conferred on the President to issue Ordinances is in the nature of an emergency power which is vested in the President for taking immediate action when such action may become necessary at the time when the two Houses are not in session. 2. The court held that the Executive cannot take resort to the emergency power exercisable by it under Article 123 of the Constitution of India only when the legislature is not in session; but by exercising power under the said provision the Executive cannot take over the lawmaking function of the legislature by taking resort to an emergency power as that would be clearly subverting the democratic process which lies at the core of our constitutional scheme. 3. The court held that the Government cannot by-pass the Legislature and without enacting the provisions of the Ordinance into an Act of the Legislature re-promulgate the Ordinances as soon as the Legislature is prorogued. 4. The court carved out an exception when it stated that if for any reason and in a given situation it is not possible for the Government to introduce and push through in the Legislature a Bill containing the same provisions as in the Ordinance in view of excessive legislative business pending before the Legislature in the particular session or if the time at the disposal of the Legislature in a particular session is short, in that event the Governor or President may legitimately find that it is necessary to re-promulgate the Ordinances and in such a situation the action in re-promulgating the Ordinance would not be open to attack.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the action of the respondents in re-promulgating the 10 ordinances was not open to attack.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by two Advocates practising in Delhi challenging the actions of the respondents in re-promulgating about 10 ordinances by the President of India on March 26th and March 27th, 1996, which have come into force on 7-4-1996 on the ground that the said actions are unconstitutional and beyond the scope and power under Art. 123 of the Constitution of India. The details of the promulgation and promulgation of the aforesaid 10 Ordinances could be summarised by the following table. The table indicates in the case of each of the 10 Ordinances, the title of the Ordinance, the date of first and second promulgation and also the date of the third promulgation where it applies:the petitioner has also set out in the writ petition the dates when the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha were summoned to meet and were prorogued, which are as follows :-It is stated that the re-promulgation of 5 of the above 10 Ordinances had taken place for the second time in spite of the fact that the Parliament was in Session during the aforesaid time.
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before us that the aforesaid Ordinances have now been re-promulgated immediately after the conclusion of the Parliament Session and before the lapse of any of the above Ordinances with an attempt to prevent them from lapsing in accordance with the prescriptions of the Constitution of India as provided under Art. 123 thereby subverting the mandatory procedure prescribed therein. According to him, the contents of the aforesaid 10 Ordinances which have been re-promulgated are substantially the same as were ordinarily promulgated. The petitioner further submitted that the re-promulgation of the Ordinance is in gross disregard of the mandate of the Constitution, inasmuch as, under cl. 2 of Art, 123 of the Constitution of India an Ordinance has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and would cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks of reassembly of Parliament, which proves and establishes that the Ordinances made by the President are strictly of limited duration and are therefore, necessarily to be placed before the Parliament during the session and would cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the re-assembly of Parliament and thus the President cannot by the process of re-promulgation avoid placing the Ordinances before the Parliament for consideration. The further submission of the petitioner was that the re-promulgated Ordinances do not satisfy the pro-requisites under the Constitution of India for having the force of law, inasmuch as, the Ordinances were not placed before the Parliament as is required under Art. 123 (2), and accordingly the said Ordinances cannot be given the force of law. The actions of the respondents in repromulgating the aforesaid 10 Ordinances are also challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the legislative power granted to the President under Art. 123 of the Constitution of India to issue Ordinances is in the nature of an emergency power vested in the President for taking immediate action where such action may become necessary at a time when the Parliament is not in session and therefore, the Executive cannot, by taking resort to an emergency power exercisable by it only when the Legislature is not in session, take over the plenary powers of the Legislature as the same would clearly subvert the democratic process which is the core of the constitutional scheme;
( 3 ) ON the other hand Mr. M. Chandrashekharan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents supported the actions of the respondents in repromulgating the 10 Ordinances on the ground that the Government had initially introduced the bills in the Parliament containing the same provisions in respect of the aforesaid 10 Ordinances but in view of the fact that the Parliament had other much important and urgent legislative business in the aforesaid sessions the Government, in s
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.