Ordinance IndiaEdit
Ordinance power is a constitutional instrument in India that allows the executive to act swiftly when the legislature is not in session. It is designed to prevent paralysis in urgent situations and to ensure that government functions can continue even during gaps in parliamentary business. An ordinance is promulgated by the President of India under Article 123 of the Constitution for the Union government, or by a state governor under Article 213 for a state government. Once in force, an ordinance has the same effect as a law passed by the legislature, but it is not a substitute for the deliberate process of parliamentary lawmaking. It must be laid before the appropriate legislature and can lapse if not approved within a limited time frame, or it can be repealed or replaced by subsequent legislation. See Article 123 of the Constitution and Article 213 of the Constitution for the constitutional mechanics, and Official Gazette for how ordinances are formally published.
Constitutional framework
The President’s ordinance power (Union level) is grounded in Article 123 of the Constitution and is intended to cover matters within the Union’s legislative competence that require immediate action. The President can promulgate an ordinance when Parliament is not in session or when there is a danger in delay. The scope is constrained by the Constitution, and the subject matter must be within the powers of the Union to legislate.
At the state level, the Governor’s ordinance power (Article 213) mirrors the federal structure, allowing a state executive to act in emergency situations when the state legislature is not in session. See Governor of a state (India) for the institutional role in-state governance.
An ordinance must be published in the Official Gazette and laid before the corresponding legislature when it reconvenes. It remains in force only for a limited period and requires later legislative endorsement to continue. The standard rule is that it ceases to operate six weeks after the reassembly of Parliament or the state legislature if not approved as an Act. See Official Gazette and Parliament of India for related procedural details.
While an ordinance has the force of law, it cannot contravene the Constitution or reduce protections guaranteed by constitutional provisions, including fundamental rights. If a future Act passed by the legislature conflicts with the Constitution, judicial review can strike down such provisions. See Judicial review in India and Constitution of India for the limits and checks on ordinance use.
Re-promulgation—the practice of issuing the same or similar ordinances repeatedly without legislative action—has been a point of contention. The constitutional framework envisions the legislature as the principal lawmaking body, and excessive reliance on re-promulgation risks bypassing parliamentary scrutiny. Courts and commentators emphasize that ordinances should be used for genuine, urgent needs and not as a workaround for delay or opposition in the legislature.
Mechanism and operation
The President can promulgate an ordinance when there is no time to wait for parliamentary procedure. The ordinance is immediately enforceable, but its fate is tied to the legislative process, since it must be transformed into a formal Act by the legislature or it will lapse. See Article 123 of the Constitution and Parliament of India.
The governor’s power operates similarly at the state level, with the ordinance needing ratification by the state's legislature to endure beyond the next session. See Article 213 of the Constitution and Governor of a state (India).
Ordinances are often deployed in moments of administrative urgency—such as to implement critical economic or financial measures, to address immediate public welfare concerns, or to bridge a policy gap when a legislative session is unavailable. In such cases, the ordinance provides a temporary, legally enforceable framework while debate and refinement occur in the elected legislature.
A key element of accountability is the requirement to place the ordinance before the legislature, where it can be debated, amended, or rejected. The final authority rests with the elected representatives who can affirm, modify, or repeal the measure through a passed Act.
Historical usage and debates
The ordinance power has a long constitutional pedigree, and its proper use is widely regarded as a legitimate instrument of governance, especially in emergencies or when quick policy action is essential. It is not intended as a perpetual shortcut around the legislative process.
In recent decades, the instrument has attracted more public attention during periods of political change or during major reform pushes. Notably, when governments seek rapid policy implementation outside the normal legislative timeline, ordinances become a focal point of political debate. The 2020 wave of farm-related ordinances in India, followed by corresponding Acts in Parliament, is a widely cited illustration of how the ordinance route can be used to advance reform agendas—sparking intense discussion about accountability, parliamentary sovereignty, and federal balance. See Farm Acts and Parliament of India for context.
Critics argue that excessive reliance on ordinances undermines the representative process, bypasses debate, and increases the risk of policy being pushed through without full legislative scrutiny. Proponents counter that the instrument preserves governance continuity, avoids paralysis during inter-session gaps, and allows the executive to respond swiftly to emerging situations that require immediate attention. Supporters often point to the eventual parliamentary review and potential for amendment as a check on executive overreach, while opponents insist that safeguards cannot be taken for granted and that frequent use signals deeper political and procedural dysfunction.
The role of the judiciary in this framework is to ensure that ordinances stay within constitutional bounds. While the courts do not ordinarily replace the legislature, they can invalidate ordinances that are unconstitutional, or that effectively amend the Constitution in ways not permitted by the legislative process. See Judicial review in India.