Question

Which one of the following is the correct statement of the decision in D.C. Wadhwa v. the State of Bihar.
A. President is entitled to promulgate Ordinances during the recess of the Parliament
B. Colourable re-promulgation of Ordinances is unconstitutional
C. Article 123 of Constitution empowers the President to issue successive Ordinances
D. Governor's power of re-issuance of Ordinance cannot be questioned in the Court of law

Answer 1

Hint: The ordinance is a law promulgated by the President of India on the recommendation of the Federal Cabinet, and its effect is the same as that of the Parliamentary Law. It can only be released when the parliament is not in session. They enable the Indian government to take immediate legislative action.

Complete step by step answer:
The case of D.C. Wadhwa v. Bihar is a good example of abuse of Ordinance-making power. D.C. Wadhwa was a professor of economics. Under this circumstance, the governor of Bihar had promulgated 256 decrees and passed all these decrees from time to time to maintain their validity for 1-14 years. Of the 256 times, 69 were re- promulgated with the president’s prior permission. In this case, the court ruled that the non-ferrous re- promulgated of the decree is against the Constitution because it is equivalent to fraud in the Constitution.
An ordinance opens to challenge the following reasons:
1. This is a matter of colourable law. or
2. It violates all the fundamental rights enshrined in our constitution. or
3. Violating important provisions of our constitution, such as B. Article 301; or
4. Come to think of it, it's unconstitutional.
So, the correct answer is Option B.

Note: The ordinance expires six weeks after the meeting of the two houses of parliament. Parliamentary sessions must take place within six months (under article 85). The maximum validity of prescriptions is 6 months and 6 weeks.