Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.
Approach · directive: “discuss”
What it asks · Two parts: the conditions Article 213 lays down for the Governor's ordinance-making power, and whether repeated re-promulgation of ordinances without placing them before the Legislature is legal.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Discuss: the essential conditions for the Governor's legislative powers, especially the ordinance power under Article 213
- Discuss: the legality of re-promulgating ordinances without placing them before the Legislature, with case law
Open with · The Governor's main legislative power is to promulgate ordinances under Article 213, an emergency power that is not a parallel law-making authority.
Cover
- Conditions: the Assembly (or both Houses) must not be in session, and the Governor must be satisfied that immediate action is needed, on ministers' advice.
- Scope: only on subjects within State competence; some ordinances need the President's prior instruction (Article 213(1) provisos), and none may infringe fundamental rights.
- Duty: the ordinance must be laid before the Legislature and lapses six weeks after reassembly, or earlier if disapproved (Article 213(2)(a)).
- Re-promulgation: D. C. Wadhwa (1987) held Bihar's repeated re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval unconstitutional.
- Krishna Kumar Singh (2017): a seven-judge Bench held that re-promulgation is a fraud on the Constitution and that laying ordinances before the Legislature is mandatory.
- Other legislative powers: summoning, proroguing and dissolving the Assembly (Article 174), addressing it (Article 176), and assent to or reservation of bills (Article 200).
- Check: ordinances face judicial review for colourable exercise and mala fides, and using them to bypass a Legislature invites Court scrutiny.
Close with · Ordinance power is an exception for genuine urgency; using it to evade the Legislature, or re-promulgating it, negates parliamentary democracy.
Add value (verified)
- Article 213(2)(a) requires every ordinance to be laid before the Legislature and makes it lapse six weeks after reassembly. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 213(2)(a) — Legislative Department ↗“shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the State, or where there is a Legislative Council in the State, before both the Houses, and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2022, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 358 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
The Governor is part of the State Legislature (Article 168) and holds legislative powers: summoning, proroguing and dissolving the Assembly (Article 174), addressing it (Article 176), assent to or reservation of bills (Article 200), and promulgating ordinances (Article 213). The last is an emergency power, not a parallel source of law.
Essential conditions for ordinances (Article 213)
- Timing: the Legislative Assembly, or both Houses where there is a Council, must not be in session.
- Satisfaction: the Governor must be satisfied that circumstances require immediate action; he acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and the satisfaction is open to judicial review for mala fides.
- Subject: only matters within the State Legislature's competence; where a bill on the subject would need the President's prior sanction or reservation, the Governor needs the President's instructions (provisos to Article 213(1)).
- Limits: an ordinance can do no more than an Act of the Legislature could, and none may infringe fundamental rights.
- Duty: it must be laid before the Legislature and ceases to operate six weeks after reassembly, or earlier if disapproved by resolution (Article 213(2)(a)); the Governor may withdraw it at any time.
Legality of re-promulgation
- D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987): Bihar had kept ordinances alive for years by re-promulgating them without legislative approval; the Supreme Court held this a fraud on the Constitution and a subversion of the democratic process.
- Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017): a seven-judge Bench held that laying an ordinance before the Legislature is mandatory, that re-promulgation is a fraud on the Constitution, and that the Governor's satisfaction is not immune from judicial review.
- Effect: an ordinance is a temporary measure, so rights and liabilities created under it do not ordinarily survive its lapse.
- Principle: the power exists for genuine urgency; using it to bypass the House, or repeating it after the House has met without approval, is unconstitutional, and only the Legislature can give an ordinance permanent life by enacting it.
Ordinance-making is an exception to legislative supremacy, not an alternative to it; re-promulgation without placing the ordinance before the House negates parliamentary democracy and does not survive judicial scrutiny.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.