Introduction

uUnderstanding the ordinance-making powers in India is essential for studying constitutional law and governance. Article 123 and Article 213 empower the President and the Governor to issue ordinances when the legislature is not in session. These powers ensure quick action during urgent situations. Yet, both articles operate at different levels of government and follow different procedures. This article explains their meaning, purpose, procedure, and differences in simple and clear sentences.

What Does Article 123 Empower the President to Do?

Article 123 gives the President of India the authority to issue ordinances when Parliament is not in session. The President uses this power when immediate action is necessary and waiting for Parliament to reconvene may cause harm or delay essential decisions. The ordinance has the same legal force as an Act passed by Parliament. The objective is to maintain continuity in governance and allow temporary lawmaking during emergencies.

The President does not act independently while issuing an ordinance. The Council of Ministers advises the President, and the President acts on this advice. This system ensures that the executive remains accountable. Once issued, the ordinance must be presented before both Houses of Parliament when they reassemble. The ordinance remains valid only for six weeks from the date Parliament meets again. If Parliament does not approve the ordinance, it automatically expires after the six-week period. Parliament also has complete authority to reject the ordinance earlier by passing a disapproval resolution. The President can also withdraw the ordinance before Parliament takes any action.

How Does Article 213 Give Ordinance-Making Power to the Governor?

Article 213 gives similar ordinance-making power to the Governor of a state. The Governor can issue an ordinance when the state legislature is not in session and an urgent situation requires immediate action. The ordinance carries the same weight as a state law passed by the state legislature. This provision ensures the continuity of state-level governance and allows the executive to respond quickly to emergencies.

The Governor, like the President, acts on the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers. Once issued, the ordinance must be laid before the state legislature when it meets again. If the state has two Houses, the ordinance must be placed before both. The ordinance stays valid for six weeks from the time the legislature reassembles. It becomes invalid if the legislature disapproves it. The Governor may also withdraw the ordinance at any time before legislative approval or rejection.

However, Article 213 has an additional restriction. The Governor must seek prior approval or instructions from the President before issuing an ordinance in certain cases. These cases include matters where the state legislature requires the President’s sanction, matters that conflict with central laws, and situations involving subjects reserved for the Union. This safeguard ensures uniformity in national policy and prevents conflicts between central and state laws.

How Do Article 123 and Article 213 Compare in Purpose?

Both Article 123 and Article 213 aim to provide a temporary lawmaking mechanism when the legislature is not available. They allow the executive to act quickly in situations requiring immediate decisions. The primary purpose is to avoid governance gaps and to maintain public order, economic stability, and administrative efficiency. Both powers function as emergency measures and not as substitutes for regular legislative processes.

Despite having similar purposes, the two articles apply at different levels of government. Article 123 operates at the Union level, while Article 213 works at the state level. This difference reflects India’s federal structure, where both the Union and the states have separate legislative responsibilities.

What Are the Key Procedural Differences Between Article 123 and Article 213?

The most significant difference lies in the involvement of the President in state ordinances. Article 123 empowers the President directly and requires no further approval for issuance. On the other hand, Article 213 requires the Governor to seek Presidential approval in specific cases. This condition prevents legal conflicts and ensures harmony between Union and state laws.

Another difference appears in the legislative bodies involved. Article 123 applies to both Houses of Parliament, while Article 213 applies to the state legislature, which may be unicameral or bicameral depending on the state. The process of laying the ordinance before the legislature and the six-week validity period is almost identical in both cases.

Both the President and the Governor act on the advice of their respective Councils of Ministers. Neither can issue ordinances independently. This rule reinforces democratic accountability since elected governments influence ordinance decisions.

Why Do Ordinances Require Approval After the Legislature Reconvenes?

Ordinances serve as temporary laws, not permanent replacements for legislative acts. The Constitution requires ordinances to be placed before the legislature to preserve the supremacy of the democratic lawmaking process. The six-week approval window ensures that the executive cannot bypass the legislature for long.

If the legislature rejects an ordinance, it ceases to operate. This structure prevents misuse of ordinance power and ensures that elected representatives hold the final authority over lawmaking. The Supreme Court has also emphasised that re-promulgation of ordinances without placing them before the legislature violates constitutional principles. Judicial review prevents arbitrary or repeated use of ordinance powers and protects democratic norms.

How Do These Ordinance Powers Affect India’s Democratic System?

The ordinance powers under Article 123 and Article 213 strengthen the executive’s ability to handle emergencies. They allow rapid decision-making during natural disasters, health emergencies, economic disruptions, or sudden administrative needs. At the same time, the Constitution includes checks to prevent misuse. Legislative approval, judicial review, and cabinet advice ensure balance between executive urgency and democratic oversight.

In practice, excessive or repeated use of ordinances has raised concerns about undermining legislative authority. Courts have repeatedly stated that ordinances should be used only when absolutely necessary. They should not serve as tools to bypass legislative debate or scrutiny. Both the Union and the states must use these powers responsibly to maintain trust in democratic institutions.

For any specific query call at ‪+91 – 8569843472‬

Conclusion

Article 123 gives the Union executive the power to issue ordinances, while Article 213 gives the same power to the state executive. Both articles follow similar procedures, share similar limitations, and aim to maintain continuity in governance during legislative recess. The main difference lies in the level of government and the need for Presidential approval in certain state matters under Article 213.

Both provisions ensure that urgent situations receive immediate attention. They maintain balance between swift executive action and democratic legislative control. Understanding these articles helps students, aspirants, and citizens appreciate how the Indian Constitution preserves stability while respecting democratic values.