How do President's Ordinance-making powers differ from legislative powers of Parliament?
Of course. This is an excellent and frequently asked question that goes to the heart of the separation of powers and the checks and balances in our constitutional framework. Let's break down the differences systematically.
Opening
The Indian Constitution, under Article 123, grants the President of India the power to promulgate Ordinances. This is a unique and significant executive power that allows the President to legislate when Parliament is not in session. However, it is crucial to understand that this power is not a parallel or superior source of law compared to the legislative power of Parliament, which is detailed primarily in Articles 107-111 and Article 245. While an Ordinance has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, its nature, duration, and the conditions for its use are fundamentally different. It is best described as a temporary legislative tool to address urgent matters, subject to parliamentary oversight.
Comparison Table
| Feature | President's Ordinance-Making Power (Article 123) | Legislative Power of Parliament (Articles 245-255) |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Basis | Article 123 for the Union; Article 213 for States (Governor's power). | Articles 245, 246 and the Seventh Schedule (Union, State, and Concurrent Lists). |
| Nature of Power | An executive power to legislate, exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers. | A primary, sovereign legislative power exercised by the elected representatives of the people. |
| When it can be used | Only when both Houses of Parliament are not in session, or when either of the two Houses is not in session. | Can be exercised at any time, but requires the Houses to be in session for a bill to be passed. |
| Pre-condition | The President must be satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action. | No such pre-condition of "satisfaction" or "urgency" is required. Parliament can legislate on any matter within its competence at any time. |
| Duration & Validity | Temporary. An Ordinance must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It ceases to operate six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament. | Permanent, unless repealed or amended by a subsequent Act of Parliament or declared unconstitutional by the judiciary. |
| Scope of Legislation | Co-extensive with Parliament's law-making powers. An Ordinance can only be on subjects in the Union and Concurrent Lists. It cannot amend the Constitution. | Plenary and extensive. Parliament can legislate on all subjects in the Union and Concurrent Lists and can also amend the Constitution under Article 368. |
| Process | Promulgated by the President on the advice of the Union Cabinet. No debate, discussion, or voting is involved. | A rigorous process involving introduction of a Bill, three readings in each House, debates, committee stages, and voting. |
| Judicial Review | The President's "satisfaction" is subject to judicial review on the grounds of malafide, as established in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) and affirmed in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987). | The final Act is subject to judicial review on grounds of legislative competence and violation of Fundamental Rights (Article 13). The procedure itself is not typically questioned. |
Key Differences
-
Source and Nature: Parliament's power is a primary legislative function, representing the will of the people. The President's ordinance-making power is an executive function, a temporary measure to be used in emergencies. It is legislation by the executive, not by the legislature.
-
Continuity: An Act of Parliament is permanent until it is repealed. An Ordinance is inherently temporary. Its maximum life, without parliamentary approval, is six months and six weeks (the six-month gap being the maximum permissible interval between two sessions of Parliament, and six weeks being the period for approval after reassembly).
-
Process and Deliberation: Parliamentary laws are the product of extensive debate, discussion, and scrutiny by elected representatives, including detailed examination by Parliamentary Committees. Ordinances bypass this entire democratic process of deliberation and consensus-building.
-
Accountability: Parliament is directly accountable to the electorate. While the executive (which advises the President) is accountable to Parliament, the act of promulgating an ordinance circumvents immediate parliamentary accountability. The accountability is ex-post facto—it comes after the law has already been made and implemented.
-
Constitutional Amendments: Parliament, under Article 368, holds the power to amend the Constitution. The President cannot amend the Constitution through an Ordinance. An Ordinance is subject to the same constitutional limitations as an Act of Parliament, meaning it cannot abridge Fundamental Rights.
UPSC Angle
For the UPSC Civil Services Examination, examiners are not just looking for a simple recitation of Article 123. They expect a nuanced understanding of its implications for constitutional principles.
-
Separation of Powers: Frame your answer around how the ordinance power is a deviation from the strict doctrine of separation of powers, as it grants legislative authority to the executive.
-
Checks and Balances: Emphasize the constitutional and judicial checks placed on this power. Mention the mandatory laying before Parliament, the limited time frame, and the scope of judicial review. The Supreme Court's judgment in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) is critical here. The Court held that the re-promulgation of ordinances is a "fraud on the Constitution" and an abuse of power.
-
Federalism: Note that the Governor's power under Article 213 is similar but has an additional check: for certain matters, the Governor must seek the prior instructions of the President before promulgating an ordinance.
-
Contemporary Relevance: Be prepared to link the theory to practice. Mention instances where the frequent use of the "ordinance route" has been criticized for undermining the legislative authority of Parliament. This shows you can apply constitutional knowledge to current events.
In essence, a high-scoring answer will present the ordinance power not as a standalone provision, but as a power that interacts critically with the principles of parliamentary democracy, judicial review, and constitutionalism.