Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Roadmap for Answer Writing 1. Introduction Definition of Ordinances: Explain what ordinances are and the constitutional provisions under which they can be promulgated (Article 123 for the President and Article 213 for Governors). Context of Separation of Powers: Briefly introduce the concept of ...
Talk about the laws pertaining to the removal of judges and the impeachment of the president, as well as the discussions around the proper application of these procedures to guarantee accountability.
Impeachment and Removal: A Balancing ActThe US Constitution outlines two key mechanisms for ensuring accountability within the government: impeachment of the President and removal of judges. While both serve a similar purpose, the provisions and debates surrounding their use differ significantly. ImRead more
Impeachment and Removal: A Balancing Act
The US Constitution outlines two key mechanisms for ensuring accountability within the government: impeachment of the President and removal of judges. While both serve a similar purpose, the provisions and debates surrounding their use differ significantly.
Impeachment of the President:
Provisions: Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to bring charges (“impeach”) against the President for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Senate then holds a trial, presided over by the Chief Justice. A two-thirds majority vote is needed for conviction and removal from office.
Debates:
Standards for Impeachment: The meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is open to interpretation. Should it be limited to criminal offenses, or can it include abuse of power or obstruction of justice? This ambiguity fuels debate on whether impeachment should be a strictly legal or a political process.
Partisanship: Concerns exist that impeachment can become a tool for the opposing party to remove a President they disagree with, rather than a genuine response to wrongdoing.
Removal of Judges:
Provisions: Article III of the Constitution states that judges hold office “during good Behaviour,” meaning they can be removed for misconduct but not for their rulings. The House follows the same impeachment process as for the President, and the Senate holds a trial.
Debates:
Protecting Judicial Independence: The key debate here is balancing accountability with judicial independence. Judges must be free to make rulings without fear of political repercussions. Impeachment should be a last resort for serious ethical lapses, not disagreements with judicial decisions.
Ensuring Accountability:
Both impeachment and removal serve to hold officials accountable. However, they are not interchangeable:
Impeachment of the President: This is a severe measure employed for serious offenses that undermine the Constitution or national security.
Removal of Judges: This is a rarer process reserved for egregious misconduct, not judicial rulings.
Finding the Right Balance:
The debates surrounding impeachment and removal highlight the tension between accountability and the need for independent branches of government. Finding the right balance requires:
Clear Standards: Defining “high crimes and misdemeanors” or misconduct more clearly could minimize partisan misuse.
Focus on Conduct: Emphasis should be on actions that undermine the office, not disagreements with rulings or policies.
Ultimately, the goal is to ensure accountability without jeopardizing the separation of powers or judicial independence.
See lessRoadmap for Answer Writing 1. Introduction Purpose: Briefly introduce the recent Supreme Court judgment and its relevance to the appointment of the CEC and ECs. Context: Mention the case name (Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India) and the importance of the Election Commission ...
Model Answer Introduction In the case Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of the appointment process for the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). The Court ruled that, in the absence of a law by Parliament, the President shaRead more
In the case Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of the appointment process for the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). The Court ruled that, in the absence of a law by Parliament, the President shall appoint these officials based on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. This judgment has significant implications for the principles of separation of powers and judicial review in India.
The Court’s decision prioritizes judicial review, given that the procedure for appointing the CEC and ECs had been left undefined by the legislature. As elections are crucial to democracy, ensuring an independent and impartial Election Commission is essential. Critics of the current system argue that the exclusive role of the executive (the President acting on the advice of the Cabinet) creates a potential conflict of interest, undermining the neutrality of the Election Commission.
The Court’s intervention is seen as addressing this vacuum, ensuring that the appointment process remains transparent and not subject to executive influence. The ruling is viewed as consistent with the citizens’ right to free and fair elections, reinforcing the principle that judicial review can correct failures when legislative inaction creates a void.
However, the judgment has raised concerns about the encroachment of the judiciary into the executive’s domain. Critics argue that the Constitution, under Article 324, vests the power to appoint the CEC and ECs in the President, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Judicial intervention, in this case, is seen as a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. While judicial review is justified in cases of legislative vacuum, the critics assert that there is already a constitutional mechanism in place, which should not be altered by the judiciary.
The judgment in Anoop Baranwal reflects the Court’s role in safeguarding democratic processes. However, it also highlights the tension between judicial activism and the separation of powers. The Parliament must now act swiftly to legislate a clear framework for the appointment of the CEC and ECs to preserve both judicial independence and the constitutional balance of powers.
See lessTalk about the discussions about the proper degree of independence from the executive branch, as well as the rules for the autonomy of the Reserve Bank of India and other regulatory organizations.
The autonomy of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other regulatory bodies is crucial for maintaining the stability, efficiency, and credibility of India's financial and economic systems. The independence of these institutions is designed to insulate them from political influence, allowing them toRead more
The autonomy of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other regulatory bodies is crucial for maintaining the stability, efficiency, and credibility of India’s financial and economic systems. The independence of these institutions is designed to insulate them from political influence, allowing them to make decisions based on economic considerations rather than short-term political pressures. However, the appropriate level of independence from the executive has been a subject of ongoing debate.
Provisions for Autonomy
Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
Legal Framework:
The RBI was established under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. This Act grants the RBI the authority to regulate and supervise the financial sector, manage monetary policy, and maintain financial stability.
Monetary Policy:
Monetary Policy Committee (MPC): The MPC, established in 2016, is responsible for setting interest rates to achieve inflation targets. It comprises six members, with three appointed by the government and three from the RBI, including the Governor who has a casting vote. This structure aims to balance the independence of the RBI with governmental oversight.
Operational Independence:
The RBI has the autonomy to decide on various operational aspects, including the issuance of currency, regulation of banks, and management of foreign exchange reserves.
Financial Independence:
The RBI generates its own income from various sources, including interest on government securities and foreign exchange operations. This financial independence helps it operate without reliance on government funding.
Other Regulatory Bodies
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI):
SEBI was established under the SEBI Act, 1992, to regulate the securities market and protect investors’ interests. It has the authority to draft regulations, conduct investigations, and impose penalties independently.
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI):
IRDAI, created under the IRDA Act, 1999, regulates the insurance sector. It has the power to frame regulations, grant licenses, and oversee the functioning of insurance companies independently.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI):
TRAI, established under the TRAI Act, 1997, regulates the telecommunications sector. It ensures a level playing field, protects consumer interests, and promotes fair competition.
Debates Surrounding Independence
Degree of Independence:
Advocates for Independence: Proponents argue that regulatory bodies need a high degree of independence to make unbiased decisions based on technical expertise and long-term considerations. They believe that independence helps maintain market confidence and prevents short-term political considerations from influencing regulatory actions.
Government Oversight: Critics argue that while independence is important, there must be sufficient government oversight to ensure accountability. They contend that complete independence could lead to a lack of coordination with broader economic policies and a potential disconnect from public accountability.
Political Interference:
There have been instances where the independence of regulatory bodies has been perceived as compromised due to political pressures. For example, tensions between the RBI and the government have surfaced over issues such as interest rate policies, regulatory forbearance, and the use of RBI reserves.
Accountability Mechanisms:
Proponents of Strong Accountability: Some argue for stronger accountability mechanisms to ensure that regulatory bodies act transparently and in the public interest. They advocate for regular reporting to Parliament, public disclosures of decision-making processes, and greater stakeholder consultations.
Risks of Over-Regulation: Others caution that excessive accountability requirements could lead to over-regulation and bureaucratic delays, hindering the effectiveness and agility of regulatory bodies.
Coordination with Government Policies:
Effective governance requires a balance between regulatory independence and coordination with government policies. Ensuring that regulatory actions align with broader economic goals without compromising their independence is a complex challenge.
Global Best Practices:
Comparative studies with other countries highlight varying models of regulatory independence. For instance, the Federal Reserve in the United States operates with a high degree of independence, but there are regular testimonies to Congress to ensure accountability.
See lessExamine the President’s role in the Indian political system, taking into account his or her use of emergency powers, appointment of important officials, and discussions over the proper limits on the President’s authority.
In the Indian polity, the President holds a significant but largely ceremonial role, with specific powers delineated in the Constitution. Here’s an analysis of the President's role, focusing on discretionary powers, appointments, emergency powers, and the associated debates: Discretionary Powers: ExRead more
In the Indian polity, the President holds a significant but largely ceremonial role, with specific powers delineated in the Constitution. Here’s an analysis of the President’s role, focusing on discretionary powers, appointments, emergency powers, and the associated debates:
Discretionary Powers:
Executive Powers: The President is the ceremonial head of the state and the nominal head of the executive. However, actual executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.
Discretion in Certain Matters: The President has discretionary powers in specific situations, such as appointing the Prime Minister when no party has a clear majority after an election, or in the case of a constitutional breakdown.
Appointment of Key Officials:
Appointment of Prime Minister: The President appoints the Prime Minister, usually the leader of the majority party in the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament).
Appointment of Governors: The President appoints Governors of states on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.
Other Appointments: The President appoints various constitutional and statutory authorities, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Attorney General, and other key officials.
Emergency Powers:
National Emergency: The President can declare a national emergency if the security of India or a part thereof is threatened by war or external aggression or armed rebellion. This emergency grants the central government sweeping powers over the states.
State Emergency: The President can impose President’s Rule (state emergency) in a state if there is failure of constitutional machinery in that state, as determined by the Governor’s report or otherwise.
Debates Surrounding Powers:
Role vs. Powers: There is ongoing debate about whether the President’s role should be more than ceremonial, especially concerning discretionary powers during government formation and emergencies.
Constitutional Role: Some argue for expanding the President’s role to act as a more proactive guardian of the Constitution, especially in scenarios of political instability.
Checks and Balances: Others argue that the President’s powers should be strictly limited to avoid potential abuse, with checks provided by the judiciary and Parliament.
Historical Context and Evolution:
The role of the President has evolved over time, influenced by the political context and constitutional amendments.
Initially envisioned as a figurehead with limited powers, interpretations and practices have shaped the extent and exercise of presidential authority.
In conclusion, while the President of India holds several important constitutional powers related to appointments and emergencies, these are generally exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers led by the Prime Minister. The debate over the President’s powers revolves around finding a balance between ceremonial duties and constitutional authority, ensuring effective governance while safeguarding against potential misuse of discretionary powers.
Analyze the Parliament’s involvement in the legislative process, including the introduction of budgets, the passing of laws, and the supervision of the executive. Examine the restrictions and limitations placed on the Parliament’s ability to enact laws.
The executive branch in the Indian political system comprises the President, the Prime Minister, and the Council of Ministers. The Constitution outlines the powers and responsibilities of each of these entities, as well as the mechanisms for ensuring their accountability to the Parliament and the juRead more
The executive branch in the Indian political system comprises the President, the Prime Minister, and the Council of Ministers. The Constitution outlines the powers and responsibilities of each of these entities, as well as the mechanisms for ensuring their accountability to the Parliament and the judiciary.
The President is the ceremonial head of the state and exercises executive powers on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
The President’s powers include the appointment of the Prime Minister, the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the promulgation of ordinances, and the granting of pardons.
The President also serves as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and plays a role in the legislative process.
The Prime Minister is the head of the executive branch and the leader of the majority party or coalition in the Lok Sabha.
The Prime Minister chairs the Cabinet and oversees the functioning of the various ministries and departments.
The Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha and exercises a wide range of executive powers, including policymaking, implementation, and administration.
The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament.
The Parliament exercises oversight through mechanisms such as question hours, debates, and the introduction of no-confidence motions.
The Parliament also has the power to impeach the President for “violation of the Constitution.”
The judicial branch, led by the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in ensuring the accountability of the executive.
The courts have the power to review the actions of the executive and declare them unconstitutional if they are found to be in violation of the law or the Constitution.
The principle of “judicial review” has been established as a core feature of the Indian constitutional framework.
The extent of the executive’s discretionary powers has been a subject of ongoing debate and discussion:
There are concerns that the executive, particularly the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, wield excessive discretionary powers, which can lead to the concentration of power and the potential for abuse.
The need for efficient decision-making and effective governance must be balanced with the imperative of ensuring accountability and preventing the arbitrary use of power.
The judiciary has played a crucial role in defining the limits of executive discretion, particularly through the development of the “basic structure” doctrine, which restricts the Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution’s core features.
The debates surrounding the executive’s discretionary powers are ongoing, with the courts and the political system continuously evolving their interpretations based on changing contexts and emerging challenges.
The effective exercise of executive powers, while maintaining a balance with the principles of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, remains a dynamic and complex challenge in the Indian political landscape. Ongoing efforts to strengthen the accountability mechanisms and strike the right balance between efficiency and oversight are crucial for the healthy functioning of the Indian democracy.
See lessExamine the judiciary’s independence and its function in interpreting the Constitution, resolving conflicts, and monitoring legislative and executive acts. Examine the current discussions over the proper limits of judicial activism.
The independence of the judiciary in India is enshrined in the Constitution, and it plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution, adjudicating disputes, and reviewing the actions of the executive and the legislature. The judiciary's independence is essential for ensuring that the principlesRead more
The independence of the judiciary in India is enshrined in the Constitution, and it plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution, adjudicating disputes, and reviewing the actions of the executive and the legislature. The judiciary’s independence is essential for ensuring that the principles of justice, fairness, and equality are upheld.
Role of the Judiciary:
Interpretation of the Constitution: The Supreme Court and high courts have the power to interpret the Constitution, which involves determining the meaning and scope of constitutional provisions.
Adjudication of Disputes: The judiciary resolves disputes between individuals, organizations, and the state by hearing cases and rendering judgments.
Reviewing Executive and Legislative Actions: The judiciary can review the actions of the executive and legislative branches to ensure that they are consistent with the Constitution.
Debates on Judicial Activism:
Role of the Judiciary in Checks and Balances: Some argue that the judiciary should play a limited role in checking the powers of the executive and legislature, while others believe that it should be more active in ensuring that these branches do not overstep their constitutional limits.
Overreach vs. Underreach: There is ongoing debate about whether the judiciary has overstepped its bounds by intervening in policy matters or underreached by failing to address important issues.
Balance between Activism and Restraint: The judiciary must balance its role as a check on power with its responsibility to respect the separation of powers and avoid encroaching on the domain of other branches.
Arguments for Judicial Activism:
Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary plays a crucial role in protecting individual rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
Checks and Balances: Judicial activism helps to prevent abuses of power by ensuring that the executive and legislative branches are accountable to the people.
Protection of Marginalized Groups: The judiciary can provide a voice for marginalized communities and protect their rights.
Arguments against Judicial Activism:
Overreach: Excessive judicial intervention in policy matters can lead to interference with legislative and executive functions.
Lack of Expertise: Judges may not have the expertise to make decisions on complex policy issues.
Uncertainty and Confusion: Excessive judicial activism can create uncertainty and confusion by creating conflicting judgments and precedents.
Ongoing Debates:
Secularism vs. Hindutva: There is ongoing debate about whether the judiciary should prioritize secularism or accommodate religious sentiments.
CAA/NRC vs. Citizenship Rights: The controversy surrounding the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) has raised questions about the judiciary’s role in balancing national security with individual rights.
Environmental Justice: There is growing concern about environmental degradation, and debates surrounding judicial activism’s role in addressing this issue.
In conclusion, while there are ongoing debates about the boundaries of judicial activism, it is essential for India’s democracy that the judiciary remains independent and plays a vital role in interpreting the Constitution, adjudicating disputes, and reviewing executive and legislative actions.
Talk about whether India’s strict separation of powers—as defined by the Indian constitution—really separates powers from functions or if there is more of a separation of functions.
Examine the procedures that the judiciary uses to impose writs and the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General in maintaining financial accountability as examples of how the separation of powers is enforced.
The separation of powers in India is enshrined in the Constitution, which divides the government into three branches: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. The mechanisms for enforcing the separation of powers are crucial to ensure accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. HereRead more
The separation of powers in India is enshrined in the Constitution, which divides the government into three branches: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. The mechanisms for enforcing the separation of powers are crucial to ensure accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. Here are some key mechanisms:
Judiciary’s Power to Issue Writs:
The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Certiorari, and Prohibition) to protect individual rights and ensure compliance with the Constitution.
Writs allow the judiciary to intervene in cases where there is a violation of fundamental rights or where the executive or legislative branches are acting unconstitutionally.
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG):
The CAG is an independent constitutional authority responsible for auditing government accounts, examining expenditure, and reporting on financial irregularities.
The CAG’s reports provide a critical check on executive and legislative actions, ensuring that public funds are used efficiently and effectively.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
PIL allows individuals or groups to bring cases before the court to challenge government actions or omissions that violate constitutional rights or public interest.
PIL enables the judiciary to intervene in cases where there is a need for judicial intervention, even in the absence of a direct victim.
Right to Information Act (RTI):
The RTI Act empowers citizens to access information from government institutions, promoting transparency and accountability.
RTI enables citizens to hold public officials accountable for their actions and decisions.
Audit and Accounting Reports:
The CAG’s audit reports and other accounting reports provide a comprehensive overview of government expenditure, revenues, and financial management.
These reports help identify financial irregularities, inefficiencies, and corruption, enabling the judiciary to take action when necessary.
Parliamentary Committees:
Standing Committees of Parliament scrutinize government policies, budgets, and expenditure to ensure accountability and transparency.
These committees can summon officials and ministers to testify, providing an opportunity for parliamentary oversight.
Challenges:
Limited Effectiveness:
While these mechanisms are crucial for enforcing the separation of powers, they may not always be effective in practice due to various factors like political interference, bureaucratic resistance, or lack of resources.
Fragmented Accountability:
The multiple mechanisms for enforcing accountability can lead to fragmentation, making it challenging for citizens to navigate the system effectively.
Limited Resources:
The judiciary, CAG, and other institutions responsible for enforcing the separation of powers often face resource constraints, which can hinder their ability to function effectively.
Reforms:
Strengthening Institutions:
Strengthening institutions like the judiciary, CAG, and parliamentary committees can enhance their effectiveness in enforcing the separation of powers.
Increased Transparency:
Increasing transparency through measures like regular publishing of audit reports, budgetary information, and official records can help citizens hold public officials accountable.
Simplification of Processes:
Simplifying processes for filing PILs, accessing information under RTI, and conducting audits can make it easier for citizens to participate in holding public officials accountable.
In conclusion, while there are challenges in enforcing the separation of powers in India, various mechanisms like writs, CAG audits, PILs, RTI, audit reports, and parliamentary committees play a crucial role in ensuring accountability and transparency. Strengthening these institutions and increasing transparency can help improve the effectiveness of these mechanisms and promote good governance in India.
Analyze the Supreme Court’s contribution to preserving the balance of power among the three branches of government, taking into account its interventions through judicial review and basic structure doctrines.
The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power among the three branches of government: the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. It does so through various doctrines and interventions, particularly the basic structure doctrine and the doctrine of judiciaRead more
The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power among the three branches of government: the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. It does so through various doctrines and interventions, particularly the basic structure doctrine and the doctrine of judicial review. Here’s an examination of these roles:
Basic Structure Doctrine
The basic structure doctrine is a judicial principle that the Constitution has certain fundamental features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament. This doctrine was established to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and prevent any form of authoritarianism.
Key Cases:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
This landmark case established the basic structure doctrine. The Supreme Court held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
Essential features identified include the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the principle of separation of powers, and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975):
The Supreme Court applied the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment, which sought to place the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial scrutiny. The Court held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980):
The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of judicial review is a part of the basic structure. The 42nd Amendment, which attempted to curtail judicial review, was struck down as it violated the basic structure.
Doctrine of Judicial Review
Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive orders. It ensures that all branches of government adhere to the Constitution.
Constitutional Basis:
Article 13: Declares that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights are void.
Article 32 and Article 226: Empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Key Interventions:
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967):
The Supreme Court held that constitutional amendments affecting fundamental rights could be subject to judicial review.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
The Court expanded the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, stating that any law affecting these rights must be just, fair, and reasonable.
SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994):
The Court used judicial review to check the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule), reinforcing the principle of federalism as part of the basic structure.
Balance of Power
Between the Legislature and the Judiciary:
Judicial Review of Legislation: The Supreme Court regularly reviews legislative acts to ensure they conform to constitutional provisions. It has struck down numerous laws that violate fundamental rights or the basic structure.
Advisory Opinions: Under Article 143, the President can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on constitutional matters, reflecting the collaborative balance between the judiciary and the legislature.
Between the Executive and the Judiciary:
Executive Actions: The Supreme Court scrutinizes executive orders and actions, ensuring they are within the bounds of law and the Constitution. Landmark cases like Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997) established guidelines for the independence of investigative agencies.
Public Interest Litigations (PILs): The judiciary uses PILs to intervene in executive actions impacting public interest, ensuring accountability and transparency.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India, through the basic structure doctrine and the doctrine of judicial review, acts as the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that no branch of government exceeds its constitutional limits. By maintaining this balance, the Court protects democratic principles, the rule of law, and fundamental rights, thus upholding the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuring the proper functioning of the Indian democratic system.
Model Answer Introduction The power to promulgate ordinances, granted to the President under Article 123 and to Governors under Article 213 of the Indian Constitution, allows for immediate legislative action in the absence of Parliament or state legislature sessions. However, this power raises conceRead more
Model Answer
Introduction
The power to promulgate ordinances, granted to the President under Article 123 and to Governors under Article 213 of the Indian Constitution, allows for immediate legislative action in the absence of Parliament or state legislature sessions. However, this power raises concerns about violating the separation of powers doctrine, which delineates the functions of the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Rationales Justifying the Power to Promulgate Ordinances
Supreme Court’s Decisions on the Issue
While the Supreme Court has upheld the power, its decisions reinforce the need for judicious exercise, acting as a check on arbitrary use rather than facilitating it.
Should the Power to Promulgate Ordinances be Repealed?
Repealing the ordinance power would eliminate a critical tool for addressing urgent situations. Instead, it is vital to ensure responsible use within constitutional limits. Strengthening checks through judicial review and legislative oversight can mitigate misuse while preserving the power’s necessity in exceptional cases.
Conclusion
The ordinance power must be exercised judiciously to uphold the spirit of separation of powers. Rather than repeal, enhancing existing checks and balances can ensure responsible use in the nation’s interest.
See less