Dr. D. C. Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others (1986) – Examining the Constitutionality of Re-Promulgation

This article discusses the case of Dr. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, in which the petitioner, Dr. D.C. Wadhwa, challenged the general power of the Governor to re-promulgate various ordinances in Bihar.

This topic of “Dr. D. C. Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others (1986) – Examining the Constitutionality of Re-Promulgation” is important from the perspective of the UPSC IAS Examination, which falls under General Studies Portion.

Background of the Case

• The petitioner, Dr. D.C. Wadhwa, was a professor of economics in Pune who had extensively researched and published about the misuse of the ordinance making power of the governor of Bihar.
• Between 1967 and 1981, the government of Bihar had promulgated 256 ordinances, which 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.
• The immediate challenge in the case was to the three ordinances that were kept alive for a period of 10-14 years. 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.

Arguments

• The respondents argued that the petitioners had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition since they were outsiders who had no legal interest to challenge the validity of re-promulgation of the ordinances.
• It was also argued 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.

Issues before the Court

• Whether the Governor can 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.
• Whether the petitioners had legal standing to challenge the validity of re-promulgation of the ordinances.

Judgement

• The court ruled that the mechanical re-promulgation of the ordinances for a period of one to fourteen years without going to the legislation was a colourable exercise of power by the executive and ruled that re-promulgation of ordinances was unconstitutional.
• The court also provided two exceptions to this rule in which re-promulgation can be allowed: (1) if the legislature cannot take it up due to existing legislative business and (2) if the government feels that an emergent situation has emerged and re-promulgation is necessary to deal with it.

Implications of the Case

• The judgment in this case holds great constitutional law importance as it examines the executive’s power to legislate through the re-promulgation of ordinances.
• The court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that laws are made in accordance with the Constitution and not by the executive.
• However, the judgment also has some faulty reasoning, such as not addressing the effects of failed ordinances and providing problematic exceptions.

Glossary

• PIL: Public Interest Litigation
• Locus standi: legal standing or the right to bring a case or claim to court.
• Ordinance: a law or regulation issued by a government or other official body.
• Re-promulgation: the act of issuing or making public an ordinance again.
• Article 213: a provision in the Constitution that empowers the Governor to promulgate ordinances.