The Ordinance Conundrum

In 1950, the Speaker spoke about the “undemocratic” practice of promulgating ordinances instead of bringing Bills. Now, they are re-issued in the absence of their ratification, thereby doing away with ordinance etiquette

- Vivek Agnihotri

THE government promulgated the Commission for Air Quality Management in the National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Ordinance, 2020, on October 28, 2020 to set up a dedicated commission to improve air quality. In terms of the provision of Article 123, the Ordinance lapsed six weeks after the start of the Budget Session on January 29, 2021, as the Bill to replace it was not even brought before Parliament, let alone passed within that prescribed time. Thereafter, on April 13, 2021, the government re-promulgated the ordinance. This raises questions about the unique practice of issuing ordinances to make law and of re-issuing them in the absence of their ratification by Parliament.

Way back in 1950, when the Constitution had just started its baby steps, and before Parliament came into existence, GV Mavalankar, the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, had protested to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru about the government’s inherently “undemocratic” practice of promulgating ordinances instead of bringing Bills before Parliament. Twenty-one ordinances were promulgated that year, which gave the undesirable psychological impression that the government was carried on by ordinances.

This issue has remained unresolved by the executive. The unfortunate saga of the three farm acts too began with the promulgation of three ordinances on June 5, 2020. “The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves,” said Cassius in Julius Caesar. The Constitution provides for it, but it has been left to the executive to use it at will.