Which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the issuance of an Ordinance by the President?
- (a)It is linked to the legislative powers of Parliament.
- (b)Article 123 deals with it.
- (c)It ceases to exist after six weeks of a Parliament session.
- (d)The President can never repeal it.
Correct — D, The President can never repeal it..
Correct — D, The President can never repeal it.
Article 123(2)(b) says the opposite in plain words: an ordinance 'may be withdrawn at any time by the President'. The word 'never' inverts the clause, so this is the statement that is NOT correct.
The idea to carry away: an ordinance is a temporary stop-gap that the President can withdraw at will.
It runs only until six weeks after Parliament reassembles, unless both Houses disapprove it earlier, Parliament replaces it with an Act, or the President withdraws it first.
The other three options each restate a genuine feature of Article 123, which is exactly why they are the distractors in a 'NOT correct' stem.
- (a)It is linked to the legislative powers of Parliament. — This is a true statement, so it cannot be the 'NOT correct' option.
Article 123(3) declares an ordinance void to the extent it makes a provision that Parliament would not be competent to enact, and clause (2) gives it the same force as an Act of Parliament.
It would be the right pick for a stem asking which statement describes the ordinance power as co-extensive with Parliament's legislative competence — the President legislates in Parliament's place, within Parliament's limits, and only while at least one House is not in session.
- (b)Article 123 deals with it. — Correct as printed. Article 123 is the provision on the President's power to promulgate ordinances during a recess of Parliament; it is the sole Article in Chapter III of Part V, headed 'Legislative Powers of the President'.
A true statement cannot answer a 'NOT correct' stem.
It is the right pick for a stem asking which Article carries the President's ordinance-making power. Keep it apart from Article 213, the Governor's equivalent, and Article 240, the President's regulations for certain Union territories.
- (c)It ceases to exist after six weeks of a Parliament session. — This compresses Article 123(2)(a), which reads that the ordinance 'shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament'.
The option's phrasing is loose, but its substance — a six-week life once Parliament is sitting — matches the Article, so it counts as correct.
It would be the right pick for a stem on the six-week limit counted from Parliament's reassembly. Two things can cut that life shorter: disapproving resolutions passed by both Houses, or withdrawal by the President — the very power option (d) denies.
An ordinance is a law made by the executive in place of the legislature, permitted only because the legislature is not sitting.
Article 123 lets the President promulgate one when either House of Parliament is not in session and the President is satisfied that immediate action is necessary.
It carries the same force as an Act of Parliament but is temporary by design.
It must be laid before both Houses, ceases six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless replaced by an Act, can be disapproved earlier by both Houses, and can be withdrawn at any time by the President.
The ordinance route exists so that governance does not stall during a parliamentary recess, but it hands law-making to the executive.
That is why the Constitution wraps it in a time limit and legislative oversight, why the 44th Amendment (1978) restored judicial review of the President's satisfaction, and why courts have struck at re-promulgation.
The same design repeats at the state level in Article 213 for the Governor, with extra conditions requiring the President's instructions in some cases.
What you learn for Article 123 therefore transfers, with those additions, to the Governor.
- Article 123 bars an ordinance only while both Houses of Parliament are in session; if either House is not sitting, one may be promulgated.
- An ordinance has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, and is void to the extent Parliament could not have enacted it (Article 123(3)).
- It must be laid before both Houses and ceases to operate six weeks after Parliament reassembles, or earlier if both Houses pass resolutions disapproving it.
- Where the two Houses reassemble on different dates, the six weeks are counted from the later date (Explanation to Article 123(2)).
- Article 123(2)(b): an ordinance may be withdrawn at any time by the President.
- Parliament must sit within six months of its last sitting (Article 85), so an ordinance can run at most six months and six weeks without approval.
- The 38th Amendment (1975) made the President's satisfaction final and non-justiciable; the 44th Amendment (1978) deleted that clause.
- R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) held that the President's satisfaction can be questioned on the ground of mala fides.
- D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) called repeated re-promulgation without laying an ordinance before the legislature a fraud on the Constitution; Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) reaffirmed it.
- Article 213 gives the Governor a parallel power, with the President's prior instructions required in three specified situations.
Three options restate Article 123; option (d) contradicts clause (2)(b), so it is the one that is NOT correct.
- A 'NOT correct' stem inverts the task: three true statements are the distractors and the single false one is the answer, so a true-looking option like (b) is a distractor, not a pick.
- 'Never' in a statement about a constitutional power is a signal to check the text; Article 123(2)(b) expressly lets the President withdraw an ordinance at any time.
- The six weeks run from Parliament's reassembly, not from the date of promulgation; if the Houses reassemble on different dates, count from the later date.
- Expiry, disapproval and withdrawal are three separate ways an ordinance ends, done by three different actors — the clock, both Houses, and the President; swapping them produces a wrong pick.
The ordinance power shows up as a statement-check: a set of claims about Article 123, and you must pick the correct or the not-correct one.
The claims are lifted from the Article's own clauses — when it can be issued, its force, the six-week life, disapproval, withdrawal — and from case law on re-promulgation.
Be ready, too, to place Article 123 beside Article 213 and say what changes when it is the Governor promulgating, and to work out how long an ordinance can last unapproved, which needs the six-week rule read together with the six-month gap allowed by Article 85.
CAPF_GAI_2020_Q832020Same provision: Article 123's temporary nature and the six-week window counted from Parliament's reassembly, both keyed correct there. What differs is the target — CAPF asks whether those two features are true; UKPSC asks you to spot the false claim that the President can never withdraw an ordinance, a clause the CAPF item does not touch.
UKPSC_2024_PRE_GSI_Q402024Same paper, and both concern the President's law-making outside the ordinary parliamentary process, but a different power: Article 240 regulations for named Union territories (keyed 1, 2, 4) rather than Article 123 ordinances issued during a recess. Useful mainly to keep the two Articles apart.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The maximum period for which an Ordinance promulgated by the President under Article 123 can remain in force without being approved by Parliament is:
- (a)Six weeks
- (b)Six months
- (c)Six months and six weeks
- (d)One year
Answerc — Article 85 requires Parliament to sit within six months of its last sitting, and Article 123(2)(a) lets the ordinance survive six weeks after that reassembly, so the outer limit is six months and six weeks.(a) is only the post-reassembly window; (b) is only the Article 85 gap; (d) exceeds the limit built from the two Articles.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Consider the following statements about the ordinance-making power of the President: 1. The President can promulgate an ordinance when either House of Parliament is not in session. 2. An ordinance may be withdrawn at any time by the President. 3. An ordinance can be used to amend the Constitution. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a)1 and 2 only
- (b)2 and 3 only
- (c)1 only
- (d)1, 2 and 3
Answera — Article 123 bars an ordinance only when both Houses are in session, so statement 1 is correct; Article 123(2)(b) lets the President withdraw it at any time, so statement 2 is correct.Statement 3 fails because an ordinance has only the force of an ordinary Act, and the Constitution can be amended only through the Article 368 procedure.
(b) and (d) include statement 3; (c) drops the true statement 2.
- practice — not a real PYQ
In which case did the Supreme Court hold that repeated re-promulgation of ordinances without placing them before the legislature amounts to a 'fraud on the Constitution'?
- (a)R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970)
- (b)D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987)
- (c)A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)
- (d)Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Answerb — D.C. Wadhwa (1987) condemned Bihar's practice of re-promulgating ordinances for years without placing them before the legislature as a fraud on the Constitution; Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) later reaffirmed this.(a) R.C. Cooper concerned whether the President's satisfaction can be challenged for mala fides; (c) A.K. Roy dealt with the National Security Ordinance and treated an ordinance as 'law'; (d) Kesavananda Bharati laid down the basic structure doctrine.