Under constitutional jurisprudence in India, repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the Legislature was described by the Supreme Court as a "fraud on the Constitution" in which decision?

Question

The concept of per se disqualification is unknown to the Constitution. Any decision as to the disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule must be taken after following the due process of law and the principles of natural justice. A member incurs disqualification only after adjudication by the Speaker. The procedure for the adjudication of disqualification petitions is prescribed under the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules 1986. The MLAs facing disqualification retain the right to participate in the proceedings of the House and vote on resolutions. Article 189(2) of the Constitution provides that any proceedings of the House are not invalid even if it is subsequently discovered that persons who were not entitled to participate or vote or otherwise take part in the proceedings, did so. In Pratap Gouda Patil v. State of Karnataka and Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi, this Court observed that members should not be stopped from taking part in the proceedings of the House merely because disqualification proceedings were pending against them
Prior to the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker’s enquiry as to the existence of a split within a political party was limited to a prima facie determination for deciding the disqualification proceedings. As a result of the deletion of Paragraph 3, the authority of the Speaker to form even a prima facie opinion regarding a split within a political party has been removed. Upon the deletion of Paragraph 3, the only defence for disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule are that of a merge under Paragraph 4. The Election Commission of India is the sole authority empowered to decide disputes between rival factions of a political party according to the provisions of the Symbols Order.
[Extracted from Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023)]

Answer 1

Ordinance power under the Constitution exists so that urgent action can be taken when the Legislature is not sitting, but it is meant to be temporary, subject to the Legislature approving or rejecting it once it reassembles. The question is which case stopped a State government from using this power as a permanent substitute for legislation.

The practice under challenge: The Bihar government, over a stretch of many years, kept re-issuing the same set of Ordinances again and again, without ever bringing them before the State Assembly for a vote. Laws stayed in force indefinitely purely on the executive's say-so, bypassing the elected Legislature entirely.
Why the Court intervened: In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that this defeated the very design of the Ordinance-making power, which is meant to be an emergency stop-gap and not a parallel law-making channel that never answers to the Legislature. The Court used the phrase "fraud on the Constitution" precisely because the executive was using a device meant for genuine urgency to permanently avoid legislative scrutiny.
Distinguishing the other cited cases: R.C. Cooper concerns bank nationalisation and property rights, Shamsher Singh concerns how the President and Governor exercise executive functions generally, and Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) deals with the after-effects of a lapsed Ordinance and whether rights created under it survive, a related but separate question from this specific description.

The correct answer is D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579.

Answer 2

One reliable way to answer a "which case held X" question is to anchor on the exact phrase used, recall which decision is remembered for it, and then check that this fits the facts described.

The phrase in question: "Fraud on the Constitution" is a phrase specifically associated with the misuse of the Ordinance-making power through repeated, unbroken re-issuance of Ordinances never placed before the Legislature, one of the most quoted lines in Indian constitutional law on this subject.
Matching it to the facts of D.C. Wadhwa: The case arose because the Bihar government had, over roughly a decade and a half, re-promulgated hundreds of Ordinances without seeking legislative approval, effectively governing through executive decree on subjects that should have gone through the Assembly. The Supreme Court's judgment is where this exact language appears, tied to this specific pattern of conduct.
Ruling out the other three: R.C. Cooper is remembered for its property and compensation reasoning in the bank nationalisation dispute, not Ordinances. Shamsher Singh is remembered for clarifying that constitutional executive heads act on ministerial advice, not personally, unrelated to Ordinance re-promulgation. Krishna Kumar Singh is a later, important Ordinance decision, but it is remembered for its holding on the legal effect of a lapsed Ordinance and parliamentary accountability, not for originating this description.

The correct answer is D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579.

Answer 3

One reliable way to answer a "which case held X" question is to anchor on the exact phrase used, recall which decision is remembered for it, and then check that this fits the facts described.

The phrase in question: "Fraud on the Constitution" is a phrase specifically associated with the misuse of the Ordinance-making power through repeated, unbroken re-issuance of Ordinances never placed before the Legislature, one of the most quoted lines in Indian constitutional law on this subject.
Matching it to the facts of D.C. Wadhwa: The case arose because the Bihar government had, over roughly a decade and a half, re-promulgated hundreds of Ordinances without seeking legislative approval, effectively governing through executive decree on subjects that should have gone through the Assembly. The Supreme Court's judgment is where this exact language appears, tied to this specific pattern of conduct.
Ruling out the other three: R.C. Cooper is remembered for its property and compensation reasoning in the bank nationalisation dispute, not Ordinances. Shamsher Singh is remembered for clarifying that constitutional executive heads act on ministerial advice, not personally, unrelated to Ordinance re-promulgation. Krishna Kumar Singh is a later, important Ordinance decision, but it is remembered for its holding on the legal effect of a lapsed Ordinance and parliamentary accountability, not for originating this description.

The correct answer is D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579.

Under constitutional jurisprudence in India, repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the Legislature was described by the Supreme Court as a "fraud on the Constitution" in which decision?

Show Hint

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Constitutional Laws

Questions Asked in AIBE exam