This article first appeared in Frontline on July 24, 2013, and can be accessed here.
In my article, I examine the true intent behind giving the executive the power to promulgate ordinances, and how the use of this power has been at complete variance from such original intent. The misuse of this power over time is a strong incentive to examine ordinance making power as it currently exists. I argue that having strong standards of judicial review would be one tool to help misuse of this power:
“Ordinance-making power is not a new feature added to the Indian Constitution. Articles 42 and 43 of the Government of India Act, 1935, gave the same power to the Governor General. Members of the Constituent Assembly, having experience of abuse of such power, were understandably wary of including the same in the Constitution. Both Hriday Nath Kunzru and Professor K.T. Shah called for restricting the executive’s power to promulgate ordinances through greater oversight by legislatures. They were, however, overruled by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who stated that ordinance-making powers were necessary since existing law might be deficient to deal with a situation “which maysuddenly and immediately arise”. According to him, the only solution was to “…confer upon the President the power to promulgate a law which will enable the executive to deal with that particular situation because it cannot resort to the ordinary process of law…” when the legislature was not in session.
It is clear that the framers of the Constitution envisaged ordinance-making powers only for unforeseen, sudden situations and where the executive required additional legal sanction to address the situation. The executive, however, decided to completely disregard this requirement of necessity for immediate action. According to data furnished in the Statistical Handbook of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, more than 41 ordinances were promulgated during the term of the first Lok Sabha itself. Indeed, in the pre-Indira Gandhi period, that is, before 1966, more than 75 ordinances were passed by the Central government. The necessity of taking immediate action by promulgating ordinances has remained debatable at best through the years.”
Certain instances show how the use of this power has been at complete variance from the requirements of immediate necessity:
“The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was created in 1997 first by an ordinance and then by an Act of Parliament. The Minister in charge stated that the ordinance route was taken since “…we were facing difficulties in attracting private investment without an authority like the TRAI. Private investors… were not convinced about our ongoing processes of privatisation and liberalisation.” Important as it is to send out a signal of commitment towards a particular government policy, in this case liberalisation of the telecommunications sector, it is hard to make the case that had immediate action by promulgating an ordinance not been taken, private investment in the telecommunications sector would never have happened.
Similarly, the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Ordinance was promulgated on April 25, 1998, one day before the government of the day decided to convene the next session of Parliament. The National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (Amendment) Ordinance, 2006, was promulgated in January 2006, even though Parliament was to convene from February 16, 2006. In both cases, no satisfactory reason was given for promulgating these ordinances in haste…
..The National Tax Tribunal Ordinance was promulgated in 2003. As per the parliamentary debate on the National Tax Tribunal Bill, the ordinance was promulgated because various committees had recommended that such a tribunal be established, and as “…huge revenue is blocked in litigation because of pendency of appeal and reference is before the High Court, which has adverse affect on the national economy”. As one Member of Parliament pointed out, though a number of months had elapsed since the promulgation of the ordinance, no tribunal had been established at the time of the debate and no cases referred to it.”
These instances clearly reveal a misuse of ordinance making power that urgently needs course-correction.