Question

Under constitutional jurisprudence in India, repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the Legislature was described by the Supreme Court as a “fraud on the Constitution” in which decision?

• A. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192
• B. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 SCC 1
• C. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579
• D. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564

Hint:

D.C. Wadhwa = "Fraud on the Constitution." Ordinance-making is for emergencies, not a way to bypass the elected Assembly or Parliament!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The Ordinance-making power (Article 123/213) is an emergency power meant for exigencies, not a substitute for the legislative process.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the state legislature is a subversion of the democratic legislative process and a "fraud on the Constitution."
- Note: While Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) later clarified and expanded on this by stating that ordinances can be judicially reviewed, D.C. Wadhwa is the seminal case that coined the phrase "fraud on the Constitution" in this specific context.

Step 3: Final Answer:
The phrase is famously associated with D.C. Wadhwa. Option (C) is correct.

Answer 2

Each of the four cases listed decided a different constitutional question, and matching the specific holding of each to the fact pattern, repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances being called a fraud on the Constitution, identifies the right precedent.

1. Option (A), Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab: This decision settled that the President and the Governor, save in a few exceptional situations, must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and do not exercise real personal discretion. It has nothing to do with Ordinance-making or its repeated use.
2. Option (B), Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar: This later decision held that an Ordinance which lapses does not automatically produce enduring or irreversible effects and that courts can examine the President's or Governor's satisfaction in promulgating it. It builds upon the concern about repeated Ordinances, but the specific phrase describing the practice as a fraud on the Constitution was not coined here.
3. Option (C), D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar: This case arose out of the Bihar government re-issuing the same Ordinances year after year for over a decade without ever placing them before the state legislature. The Supreme Court condemned this as a colourable exercise of power and used the exact expression that such repeated re-promulgation amounts to a fraud on the Constitution.
4. Option (D), R.C. Cooper v. Union of India: This is the bank nationalisation case, concerning the validity of an Ordinance and later Act nationalising major banks, and the compensation payable for such acquisition. It addressed the merits of that particular Ordinance, not the general practice of repeated re-promulgation.

Of the four, only D.C. Wadhwa's case is the source of the phrase describing repeated re-promulgation without legislative placement as a fraud on the Constitution.

Therefore, the correct answer is D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579.