← All questionsGS2 · 2015 · Polity & Constitution ·Ordinance Power and Separation of Powers
MAINS 2015
GS2
12.5 marks

Resorting to ordinances has always raised concern on violation of the spirit of separation of powers doctrine. While noting the rationales justifying the power to promulgate ordinances, analyze whether the decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue have further facilitated resorting to this power. Should the power to promulgate ordinances be repealed?

WRITE IN
9 min
200 words

What the examiner wants

Note why ordinances are allowed, analyse whether the Supreme Court has made them easier, and say whether the power should go.

AnalyzeBreak it into parts, show how the parts connect, and judge which matter most.

Demand-wise check

  1. 1Rationale: Articles 123 and 213 for urgent action when legislature not in session; 'immediate action' needed≈35 words
  2. 2Concerns: bypassing debate, repeated re-promulgation, use just before sessions (Land Acquisition ordinance thrice, 2014-15)≈35 words
  3. 3Court's role: A.K. Roy (1982) treated ordinances as law; D.C. Wadhwa (1986) called re-promulgation a 'fraud on the Constitution'; Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) made satisfaction reviewable and laying mandatory - so courts largely restrained, not facilitated≈35 words
  4. 4Repeal? No - keep for emergencies, but add safeguards: time limits, no re-promulgation, more sitting days≈35 words

Open in about 30 words and close in about 30.

Answer plan

RationaleConcernsSC rulings analysedStand on repeal with safeguards

Where marks usually go

  • Not answering the 'should it be repealed' part
  • Claiming courts encouraged ordinances without noting Wadhwa and Krishna Kumar

Draw this

  • Timeline: R.C. Cooper 1970 → 38th/44th Amendments → A.K. Roy 1982 → Wadhwa 1986 → Krishna Kumar 2017

Value addition

  • CaseD.C. Wadhwa v State of Bihar (1986): Bihar re-promulgated 256 ordinances (1967-81); the Court held re-promulgation a fraud on the Constitution.Supreme Court, 1986
  • CaseKrishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar (2017): the President's or Governor's satisfaction is open to judicial review and laying before the legislature is mandatory.Supreme Court, 2017

Mapped topper copies

Reviewed public-source references related to this PYQ. Same-syllabus references are labelled separately.

Links open original public sources. MainsBuddy does not host these answer sheets.