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

Hint:

Remember: D.C. Wadhwa = Ordinance Abuse. Whenever you see the phrase ``fraud on the Constitution'' in relation to Ordinances, think of this case immediately.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Concept: The Constitution empowers the President and Governors to promulgate Ordinances when the Legislature is not in session and immediate action is necessary. This power is intended to be temporary and exceptional.

Step 1: Meaning of re-promulgation.

• An Ordinance normally ceases to operate after a specified period unless approved by the Legislature.

• Some governments repeatedly issued the same Ordinance without placing it before the Legislature.

• This practice became known as ``re-promulgation of Ordinances.''

Step 2: Decision in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar.

• The State of Bihar repeatedly re-issued Ordinances over many years.

• The Supreme Court held that such repeated re-promulgation bypassed the legislative process.

• The Court described this practice as a

fraud on the Constitution.

• The judgment emphasized that Ordinance-making power cannot be used as a substitute for regular legislation.

Step 3: Importance of the ruling.

• It protected parliamentary democracy.

• It ensured accountability of the executive to the Legislature.

• It restricted misuse of emergency legislative powers.

D.C. Wadhwa is the landmark case that condemned repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances as a fraud on the Constitution. \[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer = (D) D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar}} \]