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?
Detailed Explanation:
✅ Statement I is Correct: An Ordinance has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. Therefore, it can amend, repeal, or modify any Central Act, subject to constitutional limits.
❌ Statement II is Incorrect: An Ordinance cannot abridge or take away Fundamental Rights. Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any law that violates Fundamental Rights.
✅ Statement III is Correct: An Ordinance can be given retrospective effect (back date), just like a law passed by Parliament.
Therefore, Statements I and III are correct.
📝 Short Notes: Ordinance
| Point | Details |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Provision | Article 123 (President), Article 213 (Governor) |
| When Issued | When Legislature is not in session |
| Force | Same as an Act of Legislature |
| Approval | Must be approved within 6 weeks of reassembly |
| Limitation | Cannot violate Fundamental Rights |
| Retrospective Effect | Allowed |
Key Fact:
The Supreme Court has held that Ordinance-making power is a legislative power, but it is subject to judicial review.
Question 1 of 8 President
Practice PYQ questions from this topic across all years
First question in this topic
Consider the following statements with regard to pardoning power of the President of...