Answer

Introduction

Article 123 envisages ordinances as exceptional measures for urgent situations. However, their routine use, alongside declining parliamentary scrutiny, signals a weakening of deliberative democracy and raises concerns about Parliament’s diminishing role in law-making and executive accountability.

Body

Institutional Decay Reflected in Frequent Ordinances

• Legislative Bypass: Ordinances increasingly substitute regular legislative processes, reducing Parliament to a post-facto ratification body.
  Eg: The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 was promulgated despite the proposal being approved as a Bill earlier, bypassing prior parliamentary debate.
• Executive Dominance: Frequent ordinances strengthen executive law-making at the expense of parliamentary sovereignty.
• Eroded Deliberation: Important policy decisions escape detailed discussion, amendment, and consensus-building.
• Committee Decline: Reduced legislative scrutiny weakens evidence-based law-making and stakeholder consultation.
  Eg: The proportion of Bills referred to Department-related Standing Committees has declined sharply in recent years.
• Weakened Accountability: Parliament’s oversight role suffers when scrutiny mechanisms are bypassed.
  Eg: The progressive erosion of Question Hour, traditionally Parliament’s primary instrument for holding the executive accountable.

Implications of Routine Resort to Ordinances on Parliamentary Democracy

• Democratic Deficit: Laws lose democratic legitimacy when enacted without prior parliamentary discussion and consensus-building.
  Eg: The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 was promulgated before Parliament could debate the proposal. 
• Weakening Separation of Powers: Decision-making increasingly shifts from elected representatives to the executive.
  Eg: The repeated re-promulgation of the Land Acquisition Ordinance (2014-15) reflected executive preference for ordinance-making.
• Policy Weakness: Absence of committee examination and debate increases the risk of legislative errors and unintended consequences.
  Eg: The Farm Laws, 2020 were enacted without being referred to a Standing Committee, contributing to widespread concerns and eventual repeal. 
• Fiat Governance: Frequent ordinances normalize rule through executive decree rather than deliberative constitutional processes.
  Eg: In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987), the Supreme Court criticised Bihar for repeatedly re-promulgating ordinances.

Structural Reforms to Restore Deliberative Capacity

• Stronger Committees: Mandatory committee scrutiny can improve legislative quality through expert and stakeholder examination.
  Eg: Strengthening Standing Committees with cross-party membership is specifically suggested in the article.
• Ordinance Limits: Clear statutory norms should restrict ordinances to demonstrable emergencies.
• Protected Debate: Guaranteed discussion time can ensure meaningful scrutiny of Bills.
• Research Support: Legislators require institutional research assistance to examine increasingly complex legislation.
  Eg: Investment in legislative research infrastructure for informed parliamentary engagement.
• Revive Oversight: Strengthening accountability mechanisms can restore Parliament’s checking function.
  Eg: The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) emphasised protecting Question Hour and committee oversight.

Conclusion

Parliamentary democracy derives legitimacy from debate, scrutiny, and persuasion. Restoring committee scrutiny, limiting ordinance misuse, and strengthening institutional accountability are essential to prevent executive-centric governance and preserve Parliament as the primary forum of democratic deliberation.

DOWNLOAD PDF