Have you ever pondered how the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of a democracy might be redefined by a single legal challenge? That is precisely what happened in the historic dc wadhwa vs state of bihar case. Consider a situation in which the executive arm of a government, which is intended to act as a temporary custodian in times of emergency, starts to wield legislative authority virtually indefinitely. In Bihar, the governor enacted and reenacted ordinances at a startling pace, therefore circumventing the legislative assembly. This was the actual situation.
dc wadhwa vs state of bihar Case Facts
- Dr. D.C. Wadhwa, a professor of economics at Pune, was the petitioner. He had published and conducted in-depth study on the abuse of the governor of Bihar’s authority to enact ordinances.
- The Bihar government issued 256 ordinances between 1967 and 1981. These were mechanically re-promulgated without altering their text or attempting to transform them into Acts, therefore keeping them in effect for one to fourteen years.
- The three ordinances that were in effect for ten to fourteen years were the subject of the case’s initial challenge. The primary point of contention was whether the Governor, using the authority granted to him by article 213 of indian constitution, could automatically re-promulgate the ordinance for an endless amount of time, therefore assuming the legislative branch’s authority to enact laws.
dc wadhwa vs state of bihar Issues
- Is it possible for the governor to rescind ordinances at will and usurp the legislature’s ability to enact laws by using the authority granted by article 213 of indian constitution?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner’s side argued that he had the right, as a citizen, to want to be governed by laws that respect the Constitution rather than ones enacted by the executive branch that go against its provisions.
- He may not be able to contest a particular ordinance until it directly impacts him, but he is entitled to contest the more general Bihar practice of issuing ordinances again and again without the legislature passing them into law.
- Since it is evidently intended to uphold the public interest, the petitioner ought to be permitted to continue filing his writ petitions.
Respondent:
- Because it was argued that the third ordinance was provided as a proposal to be turned into an Act and the other two ordinances had already been enacted into Acts of Parliament, the petitioners were not entitled to file these writ petitions and the question was only of an academic nature.
- The majority of the petitioners are outsiders, and they lack the legal standing to contest the government’s practice of re-promulgating ordinances.
- The matter brought up in court is purely hypothetical and ought not to be resolved.
- The Governor’s compliance with the requirements prior to adopting the ordinance shouldn’t be scrutinized by the court.
dc wadhwa vs state of bihar Judgment
- The Bihar Intermediate Education Council Ordinance was declared invalid and unlawful by the court. It was decided that the governor could not act in a legislative capacity by going beyond what the constitution allows. Ordinances that are repeatedly promulgated in opposition to the constitutional framework should be declared illegal.
- It declared that the state’s authority, whether legislative or executive, ought to be constrained by the constitution. The governor should only use the authority to enact ordinances in cases of emergency, when neither of the two houses of the state legislature is in session, and when the governor is authorized to act immediately.
- In Bihar, the administration has assumed the legislative branch’s responsibility in enacting laws, not just temporarily, but permanently. Since it went against the provisions of the constitution, it was hoped and trusted that this practice would end.
- Going forward, if an ordinance is made and the government wants to keep its provisions in effect even after the legislature has assembled, a bill enacting those provisions into an act must be brought before the legislature.
- Every ordinance that the governor issues have to be presented to the legislature, and it expires after six weeks. Its life must necessarily be limited. It is improper to abuse authority in order to further political objectives.
- The petitioner has brought this practice of the governor of Bihar’s ordinance being repromulgated to the attention of the court after conducting a thorough and in-depth investigation.
- Consequently, the court ordered that the state of Bihar reimburse the petitioner for the expenses incurred in filing the writ petitions, in the amount of ten thousand rupees (Rs. 10,00000).
A prime example of how legal challenges can uphold the balance of power and guarantee that the constitutional structure operates as intended is the judiciary’s involvement in DC Wadhwa v. State of Bihar. Dr. DC Wadhwa and his co-petitioners highlighted the need for legislative supervision and democratic accountability by contesting the abuse of the ordinance making power.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
