Article 123 of the Indian Constitution: Case Laws and Interpretation
Article 123 of the Indian Constitution grants the President of India the power to promulgate ordinances during periods when Parliament is not in session. This article has been the subject of numerous legal challenges and interpretations, giving rise to a rich body of case law.
Understanding Article 123
Article 123 states:
"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 immediate action, he may promulgate Ordinances, as the case may be, for the peace, progress and good government of India."
This provision allows the President to issue temporary laws, known as Ordinances, which have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. However, these Ordinances must be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible after they are promulgated. If Parliament does not approve the Ordinance within six weeks of being laid, it automatically ceases to have effect.
Landmark Cases:
**1. ** D.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1987): This case dealt with the validity of an Ordinance promulgated by the Bihar Governor. The Supreme Court, while upholding the Ordinance, emphasized that Ordinances should be issued only in exceptional circumstances and cannot be used to circumvent the legislative process.
**2. ** Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar (1991): This case is considered a landmark judgment in the interpretation of Article 123. The Court laid down strict guidelines for the issuance of Ordinances, including the need for a compelling reason, a clear demonstration of urgency, and a proper legislative intent.
**3. ** S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994): This case, while dealing with a larger issue of the relationship between the Centre and states, also touched upon the validity of Ordinances. The Court emphasized the importance of the principle of separation of powers and reiterated the need for judicial scrutiny of the circumstances leading to the promulgation of Ordinances.
**4. ** Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India (2006): This case dealt with the Ordinance-making power of the President in the context of the Essential Commodities Act. The Court held that Ordinances cannot be used to amend Acts of Parliament, and any such attempt would be violative of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
**5. ** D.F. Kar vs. State of West Bengal (2010): The Court in this case upheld the validity of an Ordinance, but highlighted the need for transparency and accountability in the exercise of Ordinance-making power. It was emphasized that the reasons behind the promulgation of an Ordinance should be clearly stated and placed before the public.
Current Challenges and Debates:
Despite these landmark cases, the use of Ordinances remains a subject of debate. Some argue that the Ordinance-making power is prone to misuse and can be used to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. Others contend that Ordinances are a necessary tool for the government to address urgent situations, especially when Parliament is not in session.
Conclusion:
Article 123 is a critical provision that grants the President a significant power. However, it is essential to ensure that this power is exercised judiciously and responsibly. The case law surrounding Article 123 provides a framework for understanding the limitations and parameters of its application. It is crucial to maintain a balance between the need for swift action and the principles of parliamentary sovereignty, separation of powers, and transparency.
