Supreme Court ruling on Ordinances: Re-promulgation of Ordinances is a Fraud says SC

ASSERTING THAT “the ordinance making power is not a parallel source of legislation”, the Supreme Court ruled that “re-promulgation of ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution” and maintained that ordinances are not immune from judicial scrutiny when the “power has been exercised to secure an oblique purpose.”
Ordinances issued under Articles 123 or 213 have the same force and effect as a law enacted by the legislature, but it must be laid before the legislature and will cease to operate six weeks after the legislature has reassembled, or even earlier if a resolution disapproving it is passed.
Laying an ordinance before Parliament or the state legislature, the court said, is mandatory because the legislature has to determine the need for, validity of and expediency to promulgate an ordinance; whether the ordinance ought to be approved or disapproved; and whether an Act incorporating the provisions of the ordinance should be enacted with or without amendments.
A government which has failed to comply with its constitutional duty and overreached the legislature cannot legitimately assert that the ordinance which it has failed to place at all is valid till it ceases to operate. An edifice of rights and obligations cannot be built in a constitutional order on acts which amount to a fraud on power.

By: Deepak Thakur