The landmark case of D. C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar in the Supreme Court is related to which one of the following powers of the Governor?

Correct — A, To repromulgate ordinances. D. C. Wadhwa, an economist at the Gokhale Institute in Pune, documented that Bihar had kept hundreds of ordinances alive for years by issuing them afresh each time they were about to lapse, without ever putting them before the legislature — some survived more than a decade that way. In 1987 the Supreme Court held that this practice was a fraud on the Constitution and a subversion of the democratic process, because the ordinance power under Article 213 is an emergency power for use when the legislature is not sitting, not a substitute for legislation.

• (b)To appoint a Chief Minister — That discretion is governed by Article 164 and by the line of cases on hung assemblies and floor tests, not by the Wadhwa judgment.
• (c)To grant pardon, etc. — The Governor's pardon power sits in Article 161; the leading cases there concern remission and death sentences, and are a different body of law.
• (d)To revise the emoluments and allowances of the MLAs — Salaries and allowances of members are settled by the legislature itself by law under Article 195; no Governor's power is involved.

Article 213 lets a Governor promulgate an ordinance when the legislature is not in session and immediate action is needed. The ordinance has the force of law but must be laid before the House when it reassembles, and it dies six weeks later unless the House passes it. Re-promulgation keeps the law alive while skipping that vote, which is exactly the check the Article builds in.

This is a two-step case. The 1987 decision struck down the practice, and the Supreme Court returned to it in 2017 in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, where a seven-judge bench confirmed that re-promulgation is a fraud on the Constitution and that laying an ordinance before the legislature is a mandatory constitutional obligation. The same reasoning governs the President's ordinance power under Article 123, so a question can approach the point from either end.

• The judgment is D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, decided in 1987 by a bench headed by Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati.
• Bihar had promulgated hundreds of ordinances between 1967 and 1981 and kept many of them alive by successive re-promulgation.
• Article 213 governs the Governor's ordinance power; Article 123 governs the President's.
• An ordinance ceases to operate six weeks after the legislature reassembles unless it is approved.
• A seven-judge bench reaffirmed and extended the ruling in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar in 2017.

• Attaching the case to the Governor's better-known discretion over government formation.
• Assuming an ordinance lapses automatically after six months rather than six weeks after the House reassembles.

A case-to-subject pairing, or a statement item on how long an ordinance survives.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  An ordinance promulgated by the Governor ceases to operate if it is not approved by the State Legislature within

  • (a)six weeks of its reassembly
  • (b)six months of promulgation
  • (c)one year of promulgation
  • (d)three months of its reassembly

  Answer(a) six weeks of its reassembly — the clock starts when the legislature meets again, not when the ordinance is issued.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The Governor's power to promulgate ordinances is found in

  • (a)Article 123
  • (b)Article 200
  • (c)Article 213
  • (d)Article 356

  Answer(c) Article 213 — Article 123 is the parallel provision for the President.