Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1986)

Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs.
State of Bihar (1986)
Details of Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1986)
Name of the case
Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Date of Judgment
December 20, 1986
Supreme Court Bench
The then Honourable Chief Justice of India, P.N. Bhagwati
Honourable Justice K.N. Singh
Honourable Justice M.M. Dutt
Honourable Justice G.L. Oza
Honourable Justice Ranganath Misra
Parties to the case
Petitioner
Dr. D.C Wadhwa & Ors
Respondent
State of Bihar & Ors
Equivalent citations
AIR 1987 SC 579, 1986/INSC/280, JT 1987 (1) SC 70, 1986 (2) SCALE 1174, (1987) 1
SCC 378, [1987] 1 SCR 798
Type of the case

Writ Petition Nos. 412-15 of 1984
Represented by
Petitioner
Advocates namely Soli J. Sorabjee, J.B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, T.N. Ansari and
Joel Peres.
Respondents
Advocates namely L.N. Sinha, Jai Narain, P.P. Singh, D. Goburdhan and Sushma Relan.
Author of the judgement
Justice P.N. Bhagwati
Court Name
Honourable Supreme Court of India
Related laws
Article 213 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
SIGN IN
Welcome!Log into your account
your username
your password
Forgot your password?
PASSWORD RECOVERY
Recover your password
your email
Download Now
Home case analysis

case analysiscase lawAllJudiciaryJusticeOrdinanceParliamentSupreme Court
Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1986)
May 22, 20248345 0
This article was written by Bhuvan Malhotra and further updated by Pruthvi Ramkanta
Hegde. This article explains the facts, issues and judgement of the case of Dr. D.C.
Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors (1986) based on an ordinance. The article also
covers the overview of an ordinance and the power of the issuance of an ordinance by
the Governor as enumerated under Article 213 of the Constitution of India.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Name of the case
Date of Judgment
Supreme Court Bench
Parties to the case
Petitioner
Respondent
Type of the case
Represented by
Petitioner
Respondents

Court Name
Related laws
Legal aspects surrounding Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1986)
Ordinance
Meaning
History of an ordinance
Power of the Governor to promulgate Ordinances when the State Legislature is not in
session
Separation of power
Facts of Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1986)
Issues of the case
Arguments framed
Respondents
Petitioners
Supreme Court’s observations in Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1986)
Critical analysis of the judgement
Could the judgement be tackled in a better way
Constituent Assembly Debates
What could have been done
Suggestions
Conclusion
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What legal principle was primarily challenged in the Dr. D.C. Wadhwa case?
Can the executive still issue ordinances after this case?

What does the term ‘locus standi’ mean in the context of this case?
Reference
Introduction
In any democratic country, the Constitution is like the rulebook that everyone must
follow. It sets out how the government should work and what rights the citizens have.
The Indian Constitution is considered a ‘mother law’ in India. The organs or wings of the
Government, i.e., executive, legislature and judiciary, while making decisions, enacting
any laws and pronouncing any judgments respectively, should ensure that the said
functions are done in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India.
Normally, laws are made by the legislature, which is a group of elected representatives
who debate and vote on them. However, there is a provision called an ordinance that
allows the President or Governor to make laws without going through the usual
legislative process. An ordinance is a temporary law that can be issued by the Governor
or President when the legislature is not in session. It is meant to be used in
emergencies or urgent situations when waiting for the legislature to meet and pass a
law would be impractical. However, when these ordinances are repeatedly reissued
without any changes for long periods of time, what may be the consequences? The
same was discussed in the case of Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
(1987) a discussion of which will be further elaborated in this article.
Download Now
Name of the case
Date of Judgment
December 20, 1986

Supreme Court Bench
Parties to the case
Petitioner
Respondent
SCC 378, [1987] 1 SCR 798
Type of the case
Represented by
Petitioner
Joel Peres.
Respondents
Court Name
Related laws
Ordinance
Meaning
In general, an ordinance is a law issued by the President of India based on the

recommendation of the Union Cabinet, when Parliament is not in session. Likewise,
Governors of Indian states can also enact ordinances when the respective Legislative
Assembly (or both the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, if it is a bicameral
legislature) is not in session.
The history of ordinances in India began with the Government of India Act, 1919. Even
though the term ‘ordinance’ was not used, this Act allowed laws to be made without the
usual legislative process if the Governor’s council didn’t pass them. If the Governor
thought a Bill was crucial and urgent for their duties, they could make it into law, even if
the council disagreed. This set the stage for ordinances, which are temporary laws
issued by the President or Governor when the legislature is not in session. They have
since become common in India’s legal system, but are subject to certain rules and
limitations.
The Government of India Act, 1919 contains a provision in Section 13 that allows for the
enactment of a Bill into law, even if it has not been passed by the Legislative Council.
This provision comes into effect when the Governor’s Legislative Council refuses to
introduce a Bill or fails to pass it in a form recommended by the Governor. In such cases,
the Governor can certify that the passage of the Bill is essential for fulfilling their
responsibilities regarding the subject matter.
As a result, even if the council does not agree, the Bill will be considered as passed.
Then, with the Governor’s signature, it can become a law. This law can either be exactly
as it was first introduced or in a version that was suggested for the Council’s
consideration. This provision lets laws be made without going through the normal steps
of the legislative process.
session
Article 213 of the Indian Constitution deals with the Governor’s power to make laws
called ordinances when the State Legislature is not in session. Article 213 states that:
If the Governor thinks urgent action is needed when the State Legislative Assembly (or
both Houses if there is a Legislative Council) is not in session, he or she can issue
ordinances.
The Governor cannot issue an ordinance if the President’s permission is needed for a
similar law, or if the Governor would normally send such a law for the President’s
consideration, or if a similar law would be invalid without the President’s approval.
Ordinances have the same power as laws passed by the State Legislature but they must
be presented to the Legislative Assembly (or both Houses) and will expire after six
weeks unless approved by the Legislature. The Governor can also cancel an ordinance
at any time.
If an ordinance includes something that would not be allowed in a regular law passed by
the legislature, that part of the ordinance becomes invalid. However, if the President
instructed the Governor to issue the ordinance, it is treated as if the President had
approved it after the legislature passed it.
Separation of power
The principle of separation of powers is a foundational structure of government where

authority is distributed among several branches. Typically, in democratic nations, these
branches are the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. This theory holds that in a
free democracy, each branch should have clear and separate roles and responsibilities.
They operate independently to prevent conflicts by ensuring that one branch does not
interfere with the functions of the others. This means that the executive should not
perform legislative or judicial duties, the legislature should not undertake executive or
judicial tasks, and the judiciary should not engage in legislative or executive actions.
This separation helps maintain a balance of power and prevents any one branch from
becoming too dominant.
In Bihar, there was a common practice in which the government repeatedly re-issued
ordinances without turning them into permanent laws through the legislature. After the
State Legislature’s session ended, the same ordinances were reintroduced with the
same content. Three specific ordinances which were challenged for this practice are:
Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Third Ordinance, 1983 – This ordinance
regulated the trade of forest produce in Bihar. It had rules about how forest products
could be bought, sold, or transported.
Bihar Intermediate Education Council Third Ordinance, 1983 – This ordinance is related
to the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. It has provisions regarding the functioning
or management of intermediate education in Bihar.
Bihar Bricks Supply (Control) Third Ordinance, 1983 – This ordinance dealt with the
control of brick supply in Bihar. It contained regulations on how bricks were
manufactured, distributed, or sold within the state.
All three of these ordinances were repeatedly reintroduced. However, the ordinances
were reintroduced without being turned into permanent laws, which led to questioning
the validity of these ordinances.
In this case, the petitioner (1), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa was a professor of economics in Pune
and had filed a PIL challenging the general power of the Governor to re-promulgate
various ordinances by the Governor of Bihar. The petitioner had extensively researched
and published about the misuse of the ordinance-making power of the Governor of
Bihar because the Government of Bihar had promulgated 256 ordinances between 1967
and 1981 and these 256 ordinances were kept alive for periods ranging between one
and fourteen years by mechanically re-promulgating the ordinances without changing
any content of the ordinance or trying to turn it into an Act.
Petitioners (2, 3, and 4) were individuals directly affected by the provisions of the
ordinances mentioned above. Petitioner No. 2 was a farmer who grew forest produce
on his land in a village called Anigara. He was affected by Clause (5) of the Bihar Forest
Produce (Regulation of Trade) Third Ordinance, 1983. This ordinance restricted the sale
of certain forest produce and created a state monopoly for their sale. Clause (7) of this
ordinance allowed the government to set the prices at which it or authorised officers
could buy forest produce from growers like Petitioner No. 2. These provisions limited
his ability to sell his produce freely, so he was interested in challenging the
constitutionality of the ordinance.
Petitioner No. 3 was a student studying in Intermediate (Science) Class at A.N. College,
Patna, which was affected by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Third Ordinance,
which regulated aspects of their education. While the specifics of this ordinance are not
discussed, it was clear that it affected or could potentially affect the rights of Petitioner
No. 3, thus challenging its constitutionality.
Similarly, Petitioner No. 4 owned a brick manufacturing business called South Bihar
Agency in Patna. They were impacted by the Bihar Brick Supply (Control) Third
Ordinance, which gave the State Government control over various aspects of brick
manufacturing and sales, including prices. These provisions affected the petitioner’s
business, so they also challenged the constitutionality of this ordinance.
During the proceedings of the writ petitions, the provisions of two of the mentioned
ordinances were enacted into law by the legislature. However, the third ordinance, i.e.,
the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Third Ordinance, 1983, was still in operation.
There was a Bill incorporating its provisions that had been pending consideration before
the State Legislature, which had been referred to the Select Committee for further
evaluation.
The general power of the Governor to re-promulgate the ordinance was examined by the
court as several ordinances had been re-promulgated over thirty times. The immediate
challenge was to the three ordinances that were kept alive for a period of 10-14 years.
Issues of the case
The main issue contested was whether the Governor could mechanically re-promulgate
the ordinance for an indefinite period of time, and thus take over the power (from the
legislature) to legislate through the powers conferred on him under Article 213.
The issue in the case holds great constitutional law importance as the executive was
taking over the power to legislate by way of re-promulgating the ordinances. This
practice of the executive is a violation of the constitutional provision as every citizen
has a right to be governed by laws made in accordance with the Constitution i.e., the
legislature and not by-laws made by the executive.
Arguments framed
Respondents
The counsel representing the respondent argued against the writ petitions, stating that:
The petitioners do not have the right to bring these writ petitions because it was
contended that the two ordinances had already been enacted into an Act of Parliament
and the third ordinance was sent as a proposal to be enacted into an Act, thus the
question was merely academic in nature
The petitioners, who are mainly outsiders, do not have a legal right to challenge the
government’s practice of re-promulgating ordinances.
The issue raised in the court is only theoretical and should not be decided upon.
The court should not examine whether the Governor followed the necessary conditions
before issuing the ordinance.
There were various arguments made by the respondents that the petitioners had no
locus standi to maintain the writ petition since they were outsiders who had no legal
interest in challenging the validity of the re-promulgation of the ordinances.
Petitioners
SIGN IN
Welcome!Log into your account
your username
your password
Forgot your password?
PASSWORD RECOVERY
Recover your password
your email
Download Now
Home case analysis
case analysiscase lawAllJudiciaryJusticeOrdinanceParliamentSupreme Court
Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1986)
May 22, 20248345 0
This article was written by Bhuvan Malhotra and further updated by Pruthvi Ramkanta
Hegde. This article explains the facts, issues and judgement of the case of Dr. D.C.
Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors (1986) based on an ordinance. The article also
covers the overview of an ordinance and the power of the issuance of an ordinance by
the Governor as enumerated under Article 213 of the Constitution of India.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Name of the case
Date of Judgment
Supreme Court Bench
Parties to the case
Petitioner
Respondent
Type of the case
Represented by
Petitioner
Respondents
Court Name
Related laws
Ordinance
Meaning
session
Separation of power
Issues of the case
Arguments framed
Respondents
Petitioners
Could the judgement be tackled in a better way
Constituent Assembly Debates
What could have been done
Suggestions
Conclusion
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What legal principle was primarily challenged in the Dr. D.C. Wadhwa case?
Can the executive still issue ordinances after this case?
What does the term ‘locus standi’ mean in the context of this case?
Reference
Introduction
In any democratic country, the Constitution is like the rulebook that everyone must
follow. It sets out how the government should work and what rights the citizens have.
The Indian Constitution is considered a ‘mother law’ in India. The organs or wings of the
Government, i.e., executive, legislature and judiciary, while making decisions, enacting
any laws and pronouncing any judgments respectively, should ensure that the said
functions are done in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India.
Normally, laws are made by the legislature, which is a group of elected representatives
who debate and vote on them. However, there is a provision called an ordinance that
allows the President or Governor to make laws without going through the usual
legislative process. An ordinance is a temporary law that can be issued by the Governor
or President when the legislature is not in session. It is meant to be used in
emergencies or urgent situations when waiting for the legislature to meet and pass a
law would be impractical. However, when these ordinances are repeatedly reissued
without any changes for long periods of time, what may be the consequences? The
same was discussed in the case of Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
(1987) a discussion of which will be further elaborated in this article.
Download Now
Name of the case
Date of Judgment
December 20, 1986
Supreme Court Bench

Parties to the case
Petitioner
Respondent
SCC 378, [1987] 1 SCR 798
Type of the case
Represented by
Petitioner
Joel Peres.
Respondents

Court Name
Related laws
Ordinance
Meaning
In general, an ordinance is a law issued by the President of India based on the

recommendation of the Union Cabinet, when Parliament is not in session. Likewise,
Governors of Indian states can also enact ordinances when the respective Legislative
Assembly (or both the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, if it is a bicameral
legislature) is not in session.
The history of ordinances in India began with the Government of India Act, 1919. Even
though the term ‘ordinance’ was not used, this Act allowed laws to be made without the
usual legislative process if the Governor’s council didn’t pass them. If the Governor
thought a Bill was crucial and urgent for their duties, they could make it into law, even if
the council disagreed. This set the stage for ordinances, which are temporary laws
issued by the President or Governor when the legislature is not in session. They have
since become common in India’s legal system, but are subject to certain rules and
limitations.
The Government of India Act, 1919 contains a provision in Section 13 that allows for the
enactment of a Bill into law, even if it has not been passed by the Legislative Council.
This provision comes into effect when the Governor’s Legislative Council refuses to
introduce a Bill or fails to pass it in a form recommended by the Governor. In such cases,
the Governor can certify that the passage of the Bill is essential for fulfilling their
responsibilities regarding the subject matter.
As a result, even if the council does not agree, the Bill will be considered as passed.
Then, with the Governor’s signature, it can become a law. This law can either be exactly
as it was first introduced or in a version that was suggested for the Council’s
consideration. This provision lets laws be made without going through the normal steps
of the legislative process.
session
Article 213 of the Indian Constitution deals with the Governor’s power to make laws
called ordinances when the State Legislature is not in session. Article 213 states that:
If the Governor thinks urgent action is needed when the State Legislative Assembly (or
both Houses if there is a Legislative Council) is not in session, he or she can issue
ordinances.
The Governor cannot issue an ordinance if the President’s permission is needed for a
similar law, or if the Governor would normally send such a law for the President’s
consideration, or if a similar law would be invalid without the President’s approval.
Ordinances have the same power as laws passed by the State Legislature but they must
be presented to the Legislative Assembly (or both Houses) and will expire after six
weeks unless approved by the Legislature. The Governor can also cancel an ordinance
at any time.
If an ordinance includes something that would not be allowed in a regular law passed by
the legislature, that part of the ordinance becomes invalid. However, if the President
instructed the Governor to issue the ordinance, it is treated as if the President had
approved it after the legislature passed it.
Separation of power
The principle of separation of powers is a foundational structure of government where

authority is distributed among several branches. Typically, in democratic nations, these
branches are the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. This theory holds that in a
free democracy, each branch should have clear and separate roles and responsibilities.
They operate independently to prevent conflicts by ensuring that one branch does not
interfere with the functions of the others. This means that the executive should not
perform legislative or judicial duties, the legislature should not undertake executive or
judicial tasks, and the judiciary should not engage in legislative or executive actions.
This separation helps maintain a balance of power and prevents any one branch from
becoming too dominant.
In Bihar, there was a common practice in which the government repeatedly re-issued
ordinances without turning them into permanent laws through the legislature. After the
State Legislature’s session ended, the same ordinances were reintroduced with the
same content. Three specific ordinances which were challenged for this practice are:
Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Third Ordinance, 1983 – This ordinance
regulated the trade of forest produce in Bihar. It had rules about how forest products
could be bought, sold, or transported.
Bihar Intermediate Education Council Third Ordinance, 1983 – This ordinance is related
to the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. It has provisions regarding the functioning
or management of intermediate education in Bihar.
Bihar Bricks Supply (Control) Third Ordinance, 1983 – This ordinance dealt with the
control of brick supply in Bihar. It contained regulations on how bricks were
manufactured, distributed, or sold within the state.
All three of these ordinances were repeatedly reintroduced. However, the ordinances
were reintroduced without being turned into permanent laws, which led to questioning
the validity of these ordinances.
In this case, the petitioner (1), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa was a professor of economics in Pune
and had filed a PIL challenging the general power of the Governor to re-promulgate
various ordinances by the Governor of Bihar. The petitioner had extensively researched
and published about the misuse of the ordinance-making power of the Governor of
Bihar because the Government of Bihar had promulgated 256 ordinances between 1967
and 1981 and these 256 ordinances were kept alive for periods ranging between one
and fourteen years by mechanically re-promulgating the ordinances without changing
any content of the ordinance or trying to turn it into an Act.
Petitioners (2, 3, and 4) were individuals directly affected by the provisions of the
ordinances mentioned above. Petitioner No. 2 was a farmer who grew forest produce
on his land in a village called Anigara. He was affected by Clause (5) of the Bihar Forest
Produce (Regulation of Trade) Third Ordinance, 1983. This ordinance restricted the sale
of certain forest produce and created a state monopoly for their sale. Clause (7) of this
ordinance allowed the government to set the prices at which it or authorised officers
could buy forest produce from growers like Petitioner No. 2. These provisions limited
his ability to sell his produce freely, so he was interested in challenging the
constitutionality of the ordinance.
Petitioner No. 3 was a student studying in Intermediate (Science) Class at A.N. College,
Patna, which was affected by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Third Ordinance,
which regulated aspects of their education. While the specifics of this ordinance are not
discussed, it was clear that it affected or could potentially affect the rights of Petitioner
No. 3, thus challenging its constitutionality.
Similarly, Petitioner No. 4 owned a brick manufacturing business called South Bihar
Agency in Patna. They were impacted by the Bihar Brick Supply (Control) Third
Ordinance, which gave the State Government control over various aspects of brick
manufacturing and sales, including prices. These provisions affected the petitioner’s
business, so they also challenged the constitutionality of this ordinance.
During the proceedings of the writ petitions, the provisions of two of the mentioned
ordinances were enacted into law by the legislature. However, the third ordinance, i.e.,
the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Third Ordinance, 1983, was still in operation.
There was a Bill incorporating its provisions that had been pending consideration before
the State Legislature, which had been referred to the Select Committee for further
evaluation.
The general power of the Governor to re-promulgate the ordinance was examined by the
court as several ordinances had been re-promulgated over thirty times. The immediate
challenge was to the three ordinances that were kept alive for a period of 10-14 years.
Issues of the case
The main issue contested was whether the Governor could mechanically re-promulgate
the ordinance for an indefinite period of time, and thus take over the power (from the
legislature) to legislate through the powers conferred on him under Article 213.
The issue in the case holds great constitutional law importance as the executive was
taking over the power to legislate by way of re-promulgating the ordinances. This
practice of the executive is a violation of the constitutional provision as every citizen
has a right to be governed by laws made in accordance with the Constitution i.e., the
legislature and not by-laws made by the executive.
Arguments framed
Respondents
The counsel representing the respondent argued against the writ petitions, stating that:
The petitioners do not have the right to bring these writ petitions because it was
contended that the two ordinances had already been enacted into an Act of Parliament
and the third ordinance was sent as a proposal to be enacted into an Act, thus the
question was merely academic in nature
The petitioners, who are mainly outsiders, do not have a legal right to challenge the
government’s practice of re-promulgating ordinances.
The issue raised in the court is only theoretical and should not be decided upon.
The court should not examine whether the Governor followed the necessary conditions
before issuing the ordinance.
There were various arguments made by the respondents that the petitioners had no
locus standi to maintain the writ petition since they were outsiders who had no legal
interest in challenging the validity of the re-promulgation of the ordinances.
Petitioners
Petitioner’s side contended that as a citizen, he has the right to insist on being governed
by laws that adhere to the Constitution, rather than laws made by the executive branch
in violation of constitutional provisions. While he may not have the right to challenge a
specific ordinance unless it directly affects him, he has the right to challenge the
broader practice of Bihar repeatedly re-issuing ordinances without them being turned
into laws by the legislature. It is clearly for the vindication of public interest”, and
therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to maintain his writ petitions.
However, after hearing these arguments, the court decided to allow the writ petitions.
The Honourable Supreme Court observed that the repetitive issuance of ordinances by
the Bihar Government without seeking approval from the legislature, this practice is in
violation of the constitutional framework. Further, the Court looked at judicial decisions
taken in past cases to back up its decision.
They pointed out a rule from a case, K.C. Gajapati Narayana Deo & Ors. v. State of
Orissa (1953), which says the judiciary should focus on what the government is actually
doing, not just what it looks like they are doing. Furthermore, the Court made
comparisons between the conduct of the President and the Governor in exercising
ordinance powers. Despite possessing similar authority, the Court noted that the
President had not engaged in the same practice of reissuing ordinances after their
expiration. This observation, drawn from the case of P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special
Deputy Collector, Madras & Anr. (1964) underscored the irregularity and impropriety of
the Governor’s actions.
Further, the court acknowledges that the power given to the Governor to issue
ordinances is like an emergency power, meant for situations when the legislature is not
in session and immediate action is needed to address a pressing issue. It also
emphasises that while the Governor has this power, the main authority for making laws
lies with the legislature, not the executive. The Governor’s power to issue ordinances is
a temporary measure to address urgent situations until the legislature reconvenes.
Ordinances should have a limited duration and should not be used to bypass the
legislature’s lawmaking function.
All these arguments were turned down by the court as the third ordinance, though
presented as a proposal to the Parliament, was still in force. The Supreme Court held
that the Governor can not just make new rules arbitrarily. They can only make temporary
rules for emergencies, and these rules stop being valid when the Legislature meets
again.
The Court ruled that the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Ordinance, 1983, which is
currently in effect, has been declared unconstitutional and. therefore, invalid. The law is
not legally valid or binding because it goes against the provisions of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, any actions or regulations done on the basis of this ordinance are
considered legally invalid.
The court further held that the act of the Governor is unconstitutional because it
exceeds the Governor’s authority as outlined in the Constitution. The court further held
that the executive branch in Bihar is acting like a legislature by making laws for
extended periods without complying with constitutional limits. This behaviour is seen as
improper and against the constitutional framework.
The court ruled that instead of relying on ordinances for a prolonged period, the
government should follow the proper legislative process by introducing Bills in the
legislature to enact those provisions into law. The court also held that there must not be
any Ordinance-Raj practice in the country accordingly; it’s saying that the executive
should not overstep its boundaries by making laws for extended periods through
ordinances and should instead work within the constitutional framework by involving
the legislature in the law-making process.
The Court further emphasised the importance of the rule of law in accordance with the
Constitution of India. It states that all branches of the government, such as the
legislature, executive, and any other authority, must operate within the ambit of
constitutional limitations. If any branch of the government, particularly the executive,
engages in practices that violate these constitutional limits, any member of the public
(referred to as Petitioner No. 1) would have the right to challenge such practices by
filing a writ petition. Furthermore, it is highlighted that it is the constitutional duty of the
Supreme Court to consider and rule on the validity of such petitions.
Issuing the ordinances is a special power confirmed by the Governor. It is meant for
dealing with big problems quickly. But it shouldn’t be used for political reasons. The
Governor can make temporary rules called ordinances when there’s an emergency and
the regular law-making body, the legislature, is not meeting in session. Even though the
legislature usually makes laws, in emergencies, the Governor can step in. However,
every ordinance must be presented to the legislature, and it only lasts for six weeks
after the legislature meets again unless the legislature agrees to keep it longer by
enacting such an ordinance. This way, ordinances are only used when needed and for a
limited time. Ordinances are only supposed to last for a short time, usually six weeks, to
give the regular lawmakers a chance to make a proper law. If they don’t do it within that
time, the ordinance expires. The government cannot keep reissuing the same ordinance
without the legislature’s approval. When an ordinance is issued by the Governor to h

Dr. D. C. Wadhwa &amp; Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1986)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr. D. C. Wadhwa &amp; Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1986)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs.

State of Bihar (1986)

Details of Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1986)

Name of the case

Dr. D. C. Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

December 20, 1986

Supreme Court Bench

The then Honourable Chief Justice of India, P.N. Bhagwati

Honourable Justice K.N. Singh

Honourable Justice M.M. Dutt

Honourable Justice G.L. Oza

Honourable Justice Ranganath Misra

Parties to the case

Dr. D.C Wadhwa & Ors

State of Bihar & Ors

Type of the case

Author of the judgement

Justice P.N. Bhagwati

Honourable Supreme Court of India

Article 213 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Welcome!Log into your account

Forgot your password?

Recover your password

Home case analysis