Union Executive› President & Vice-President
With reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements :
- I. An Ordinance can amend any Central Act.
- II. An Ordinance can abridge a Fundamental Right.
- III. An Ordinance can come into effect from a back date
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Answer c.
Option (c) — statements I and III are correct. An Ordinance has the same force as an Act, so it can amend a Central law and can be given retrospective effect; but it cannot abridge a Fundamental Right, because an Ordinance is 'law' under Article 13. Article 123 says an Ordinance promulgated by the President 'shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament', so its power is co-extensive with Parliament's legislative power — it can amend or repeal a Central Act, subject to the same limits. Because Article 13(3)(a) defines 'law' to include an ordinance, Article 13(2) bars an Ordinance from taking away or abridging Fundamental Rights, exactly as it bars a statute. Retrospective operation is an ordinary incident of legislative power, so an Ordinance may be given effect from a back date; the only firm bar is Article 20(1), which forbids retrospective criminal liability or enhanced penalties. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) confirmed that ordinance-making is subject to judicial review and that laying the Ordinance before the legislature is mandatory.
Prepared with PrepKar AI and checked; it may contain errors.