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. \[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer = (D) D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar}} \]

Answer 2

The question names four decisions and asks which one specifically condemned the repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances, without ever placing them before the Legislature, as a "fraud on the Constitution." Testing each case against its actual subject matter answers this by elimination.

1. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564: This is the bank nationalisation case, dealing with the validity of acquiring the undertakings of major banks and the constitutional guarantees around property and compensation as they stood at the time. It has nothing to do with Ordinance-making power or re-promulgation.
2. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192: This decision concerns how the executive power of the Governor and President is actually exercised, holding that such power is ordinarily exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers rather than personally. It addresses the working of executive power generally, not repeated Ordinance re-promulgation.
3. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 SCC 1: This is also a significant Ordinance case, a seven-judge bench held that a lapsed Ordinance does not automatically create irreversible rights and that courts can examine whether re-promulgation was a colourable exercise of power. It builds on the idea of misuse of Ordinance power, but the specific description of the practice as a fraud on the Constitution had already been coined in an earlier decision that this one refers back to.
4. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579: Here, the State of Bihar had kept re-issuing the same Ordinances, in some instances for over a decade, without ever placing them before the State Legislature for enactment into law. The Supreme Court held that this defeated the constitutional scheme, under which Ordinance power is meant to be a stop-gap measure only until the Legislature can act, and described the practice in strong terms as a fraud on the Constitution.

Since the case that coined this description for the practice of endless re-promulgation is the Bihar Ordinances case, that option matches.

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