123. Power of President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament
(1)If at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinance as the circumstances appear to him to require.(2)An Ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, but every such Ordinance--(a)shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions; and(b)may be withdrawn at any time by the President.Explanation.--Where the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this clause.(3)If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes any provision which Parliament would not under this Constitution be competent to enact, it shall be void.[Re-promulgation of Ordinances -Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar. A 7-judge Constitution bench has held that unfettered re-promulgation of ordinances is not permissible by the Constitution. On 2nd January, 2017, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that re-promulgation of ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution and a subversion of democratic legislative processes. The majority Judgment, authored by Justice DY Chandrachud, held that the requirement of placing the ordinance before the Legislature is mandatory; Justice Madan B Lokur observed that it is directory; Justice Thakur, the Chief Justice of India as he was then, in his separate concurring opinion, preferred to leave the ‘question of interpretation of Articles 123 (2) and 213(2) in so far as the obligation of the Government to place the ordinance before the Parliament/legislature open. The Supreme Court of India’s seven-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the “RE-PROMULGATION OF ORDINANCES” must be taken to be a violation of our Indian Constitution as it undermines parliamentary legislative procedures. This Bench furthermore ruled that: “The approval and gratification of the President of India, under Article 123, and the Governor, under Article 213, when issuing an Ordinance is not excluded from judicial process and legal challenge.”(https:indiankanoon.org/doc/107225908/, https:blog.ipleaders.in unconstitutionality-of-the-re-promulgation-of-ordinances-the-krishna-kumar-singh-conundrum/)][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
