Validity of Ordinances Examined: Court Rules on Re-Promulgation and Enduring Rights

The court held that laying an Ordinance before the State Legislature is not mandatory under Article 213(2) of the Constitution. It was determined that an Ordinance cannot create enduring or irreversible rights in a citizen. The re-promulgation of an Ordinance by the Governor was deemed unconstitutional in this case, highlighting the importance of justification for such actions. While the first three Ordinances were assumed valid, subsequent ones were struck down due to inadequate justification. The judgment clarified that transactions under an Ordinance do not have lasting effects beyond its expiration, emphasizing the temporary nature of Ordinances.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether laying an Ordinance before the State Legislature is mandatory under Article 213(2) of the Constitution.
2. Whether an Ordinance can create enduring or irreversible rights in a citizen.
3. The legality of re-promulgation of an Ordinance.
4. The validity of the specific Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of Bihar.
5. The effect of concluded transactions under an Ordinance that has ceased to operate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Mandatory Nature of Laying an Ordinance Before the Legislature:
One judge expressed disagreement with the view that laying an Ordinance before the State Legislature is mandatory under Article 213(2) of the Constitution. It was argued that not laying an Ordinance before the Legislature does not invalidate it but merely causes it to cease to operate after six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature. The Constitution does not provide any consequence other than the Ordinance ceasing to operate. Thus, it is not mandatory for the Executive to lay an Ordinance before the Legislative Assembly.

2. Enduring or Irreversible Rights Created by an Ordinance:
The judgment overruled the contrary views expressed in previous cases (State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose and T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh), stating that an Ordinance cannot create enduring or irreversible rights in a citizen. An Ordinance is constitutionally transient and cannot provide for any savings clause or contingency that would extend beyond its life.

3. Legality of Re-promulgation of an Ordinance:
The judgment held that the re-promulgation of an Ordinance by the Governor is not per se a fraud on the Constitution, but it should not be a mechanical exercise. The Governor must be satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for immediate action. However, the re-promulgation of Ordinances without adequate justification, as seen in the case of Bihar, was deemed unconstitutional.

4. Validity of Specific Ordinances Promulgated by the Governor of Bihar:
The judgment concluded that the first three Ordinances, not being challenged by the employees, are assumed valid. However, the fourth and subsequent Ordinances were struck down due to inadequate justification by the State of Bihar, despite a specific challenge by the employees. The High Court's decision to strike down these Ordinances was upheld.

5. Effect of Concluded Transactions Under an Ordinance:
The judgment clarified that actions and transactions concluded under an Ordinance before it ceases to operate do not survive beyond its life. The Constitution does not attach any degree of permanence to actions or transactions pending or concluded during the currency of an Ordinance. The distinction between a temporary Act and an Ordinance was emphasized, noting that an Ordinance cannot constitutionally make provisions for enduring effects.

Conclusion:
The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional provisions related to the promulgation and re-promulgation of Ordinances, emphasizing the importance of legislative control and the temporary nature of Ordinances. The specific Ordinances in question were evaluated, leading to the conclusion that the first three were assumed valid due to lack of challenge, while the fourth and subsequent Ordinances were struck down. The judgment also clarified that concluded transactions under an Ordinance do not survive beyond its life, reinforcing the transient nature of Ordinances.

---