Opinion

In 'Digital India', is it time to end Raj-era rules that allow governments to push ordinances?

Governments often misuse the power that enables them to push through legislation without Parliamentary debate.

On the first working day of the new year, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgement, said that repromulgation of ordinances was impermissible under the Constitution and that the effects of a lapsed ordinance would continue only if they were physically impossible to reverse or if were manifestly in the public interest to let them remain.

While the Supreme Court decision pertains only to the technicalities of ordinance-making powers, given the frequent controversies relating to the use and abuse of this power, there exists a case for abolishing it entirely.

An ordinance is a decree that can be issued by the president in cases where urgent or immediate action needs to be taken but Parliament is not in session. After an ordinance is promulgated, it has the same effect as any other law until the next Parliament session is convened. The ordinance then has to be placed before the legislature, which can pass an identical bill to replace it. If this does not happen within six weeks of Parliament reconvening, the ordinance lapses. Similarly, state governors can also promulgate ordinances when the state assembly is not in session.

Under the Indian Constitution, there is a strict separation of powers between the three arms of the State: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The legislature, which consists of elected representatives in Parliament and state assemblies, enacts laws. The executive – the council of ministers at the Centre and in each state – is tasked with implementing these laws while the judiciary adjudicates the enforcement actions under the laws. Neither organ can ordinarily perform the function of the other.

Ordinance making powers conferred upon the president and the state governor are thus unique because they depart from the usual separation of powers. The most important restriction on the use of this power is that circumstances must exist that render it necessary for the government to take immediate action when the legislature is not in session.

Abuse of power

However, over the years, the power to promulgate ordinances has been consistently abused. On many occasions, it has been used for the sake of political convenience even when there is no need for immediate action. For instance, Indira Gandhi in 1969 passed the bank nationalisation ordinance, transferring the ownership of 14 commercial banks to the state, just two days before the Parliament was to convene.

More recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government refused a discussion on demonetisation in Parliament as it disagreed with the Opposition’s terms on the discussion and failed to introduce any bill to give the move to ban high-value currency notes statutory backing. However, on December 28, a fortnight after the winter session of Parliament ended, an ordinance was promulgated giving legislative backing to the exercise.

There are many more such examples. In 2003, under the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government, the National Tax Tribunal Ordinance was promulgated. However, that there was no need for immediate action became clear when, despite the ordinance, the tribunal had not been made operational by the time Parliament considered it, a few months later. In 2014,an ordinance was also promulgated for the purportedly urgent matter of ensuring that a newly elected prime minister Modi gets the principal secretary of his choice.

Raj-era Act

The origin of the ordinance-making powers can be traced back the colonial era, and more precisely, to the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 42 of this Act stated that the governor general could issue ordinances while the central legislature was in recess. When independent India’s Constitution was being drafted, some members of the Constituent Assembly such as Hriday Nath Kunzru, HV Kamath and Professor KT Shah objected to the inclusion of ordinance-making powers as being anti-democratic with a high likelihood of abuse. Dr BR Ambedkar, however, saw it as a necessary evil and justified its inclusion by stating:

“My submission to the house is that it is not difficult to imagine cases where the powers conferred by the ordinary law existing at any particular moment may be deficient to deal with a situation which may suddenly and immediately arise. What is the executive to do? The executive has got a new situation arisen, which it must deal with Exhypothesi it has not got the power to deal with that in the existing code of law. The emergency must be dealt with, and it seems to me that the only solution is to confer upon the President the Power to promulgate a law which will enable the executive to deal with that particular situation because it cannot resort to the ordinary process of law because, again ex hypothesi, the legislature is not in session.”

Thus, the idea underlying the ordinance-making power was that when a law needs to be enacted urgently, it should be possible to do so. In the late 1940s, when the Constitution was drafted, it would have been impossible to call an emergency session of Parliament at short notice because in those days, many MPs, especially those from the South and the Northeast, would have needed to undertake long journeys by various means of transport to reach New Delhi for the session.

However, in the 21st century, this is no longer the case. It would be entirely practical to hold an emergency session of Parliament or Legislative Assembly, in which MPs or legislators participate through video conferencing and cast their votes online or on an app-based platform. If need be, a special videoconferencing centre could be set up in each district for such emergency sessions.

Similar provisions already exist in company law. Directors are allowed to participate in board meetings through video conferencing and shareholders can cast their votes online without physically attending the meetings where the issue is taken up for voting.

If such systems are implemented in the legislative process, ordinance-making powers could be repealed, putting to rest all the concerns and controversies surrounding them and replacing them with emergency digital Parliament sessions. If the government truly wants to usher in a Digital India, this would be a good step in that direction.

Sagar Godbole is an associate at Trilegal. Views expressed here are personal.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.