Skip to main content

Ordinary Making Power ( Article 123) - By Isha

 Ordinance Making Power (Article123) – By Isha


Article 123 (1) provides: “ If, at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in Session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist, which render it necessary for him to take immense action, he may promulgate such Ordinances as the circumstances appear to him to require.” An ordinance promulgated by the President has the same force and effect as an Act of the Parliament. The President may withdraw the Ordinance at any time.


The Ordinance promulgated by the President is required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It ceases to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament. However, if resolutions disapproving the Ordinance are passed by both the Houses before the expiry of these six weeks shall be reckoned from the date, the latter House meets.


The President may promulgate Ordinances under Article (123) (1), with respect to all those matters with respect to which Parliament is competent to make laws. The power of the President to promulgate Ordinances is thus declared to be co-extensive with the power of the Parliament to make laws. However, the President can promulgate an ordinance only when the following two conditions are existing:

  1. When both Houses of Parliament are not in Session. Thus, he can promulgate the Ordinance when one of the House is in Session.

  2. When circumstances exist which render it necessary for the President to take immediate action.


Ordinances per se are against the spirit of democracy and not conducive to the development of the best Parliamentary traditions. However the issuance of Ordinances has been held desirable to deal with an unforeseen and urgent situation. Justifying the provision in the Constituent Assembly, Dr B.R. Ambedkar said – 

“ The emergency must be dealt with, and it seems to me that the only solution is to confer upon the President the power to promulgate a law which will enable the executive to deal with that particular situation because it cannot resort to the ordinary process of law because... the legislature is not in session”.


Case laws

  1. In R.C. Cooper vs Union of India, the Banking Companies (Aquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969 was challenged on the ground that the President had not satisfied himself as regards to the urgency of the circumstances. The Supreme Court, however held that “ under the Constitution, the President being the constitutional head, normally acts, in all matters, including the promulgation of an Ordinance, on the advice of his Council of Ministers”. The Ordinance is promulgated in the name of the President, but it is, in truth, a promulgation on the advice of his Council of Ministers and on their satisfaction.


It has been held that an Ordinance passes under Article 123 stands on the same footing as an Act passed by the legislature. It cannot be treated as an executive action or an administration decision. The courts cannot infer a legislative malice in passing a statue. It is clothed with all the attributes of an Act of the Legislature, carrying with it all its incidents, immunities and limitations under the Constitution. An ordinance has been held to be a law under Article 21 of the Constitution. As the Legislature can repeal an existing enactment or amend it, so also, the President, by an Ordinance, can repeal or amend an existing legislation. 


  1.  In A.K. Roy vs Union of India, the National Security Ordinance,1980 provided for, detention of persons acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, security of India, security of the State and friendly relations with foreign powers. The Ordinance was challenged on the ground that it suffered from vagueness and arbitrariness. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Ordinance and held that it was not violative of Article 14.

However, the Supreme Court held that Ordinance making power of the President would be subject to the tests of vagueness, arbitrariness, reasonableness, public interest, and that it was passed during the recess of the Union Parliament.
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 ...
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 ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more