9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of Petitioners 2. Constitutional Validity of Re-promulgation of Ordinances by the Governor 3. Examination of Governor's Satisfaction in Issuing Ordinances 4. Usurpation of Legislative Function by the Executive Summary: 1. Locus Standi of Petitioners: The respondents contended that the petitioners had no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions since two of the challenged ordinances had already lapsed and their provisions were enacted into Acts of the Legislature. However, the Court rejected this preliminary objection, stating that at the date when the writ petitions were filed, the ordinances were in operation and affected the interests of petitioners Nos. 2 and 4. Moreover, Petitioner No. 1, a professor deeply interested in constitutional functioning, was held to have sufficient interest to maintain the petition u/s Article 32 for vindication of public interest. 2. Constitutional Validity of Re-promulgation of Ordinances by the Governor: The core issue was whether the Governor could re-promulgate ordinances for an indefinite period, thus usurping the legislative power. The Court observed that the power to promulgate ordinances u/s Article 213 is an emergency power meant for immediate action when the Legislature is not in session. The practice of re-promulgating ordinances by the Governor of Bihar, without converting them into Acts, was held to be unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that such a practice amounted to a "fraud on the Constitution" and was repugnant to the constitutional scheme, as it allowed the Executive to bypass the Legislature and continue the provisions of an ordinance beyond the period limited by the Constitution. 3. Examination of Governor's Satisfaction in Issuing Ordinances: The respondents argued that the Court could not examine the Governor's satisfaction in issuing an ordinance. The Court clarified that the issue at hand was not about the Governor's satisfaction but whether the Governor had the power to re-promulgate the same ordinance successively without legislative approval. The Court held that the Governor could not assume legislative functions beyond the limits set by the Constitution. 4. Usurpation of Legislative Function by the Executive: The Court noted that the Executive in Bihar had taken over the legislative role by re-promulgating ordinances for years, which was contrary to the constitutional scheme. The Court stressed that the primary law-making authority is the Legislature, and the Executive cannot continue the provisions of an ordinance by re-promulgation without legislative approval. The Court struck down the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Ordinance, 1983, as unconstitutional and void, and directed the State of Bihar to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs to Petitioner No. 1 for bringing the matter to the Court's notice. Conclusion: The petitions were allowed, and the practice of re-promulgating ordinances by the Governor of Bihar was declared unconstitutional, emphasizing the need for adherence to constitutional limitations and legislative processes.
|
