What Happens When a Legislative Ordinance Fails to Obtain Parliamentary Ratification: Implications for Sentences Under the Ordinance
When a legislative ordinance fails to obtain the parliamentary ratification, it can have significant implications, particularly concerning the sentences handed down to convicts under that ordinance. This article examines the process of making laws in India, the roles of the President and Parliament, and the specific legal implications of non-ratified ordinances.
Understanding the Law-Making Process in India
In India, legislative processes involve multiple stages and authorities. The foundation of any law is the drafting of a bill, which is then introduced in the Parliament, comprising the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. If both houses pass the bill, it is sent to the President for his or her assent. Upon Presidential approval, the bill becomes an Act, published in the Gazette of India.
The Role of Presidential Ordinances
However, the process can take longer, especially during times when the Parliament is not in session, typically three times a year. In such situations, the Constitution of India authorizes the President to promulgate ordinances under Article 213. These ordinances have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament but are only valid for a limited period—up to six weeks after the Parliament reconvenes. The maximum validity is six months and six weeks if the ordinance is not ratified by both houses.
During the validity period of an ordinance, it can be enforced and enforced with the same stringent authority as an Act. Once the President promulgates an ordinance, it comes into immediate effect, and offenders are subject to its provisions. If the ordinance is not approved within the stipulated time, it expires, and its provisions cease to be legally enforceable.
What Happens to Sentences Given Before Non-Ratification?
The critical aspect of this legal scenario involves criminal sentencing under an ordinance that later fails to obtain parliamentary ratification. If a law is enacted through an ordinance and later expires without ratification, the convictions under that ordinance remain valid. This is because the ordinance was in force during its validity period, making it a valid law during that time.
“If an Ordinance ceases to operate, any action taken under the Ordinance would be valid during the currency of the Ordinance since it has the force and effect of a law.” - Justice Madan Lokur
Therefore, even if the ordinance is later struck down, the sentences handed down while the ordinance was in effect remain valid. This decision is based on the principle that actions taken under the ordinance during its valid period are considered legal and binding.
Legal Implications and Consequences
The failure to ratify an ordinance can lead to certain legal challenges. For instance, individuals who were convicted and sentenced under a non-ratified ordinance might seek legal recourse, challenging the legality or validity of their convictions post-ratification. Courts may need to evaluate whether the initial conviction was valid under the operative law, even if the sentence has been served during a period when the ordinance was technically invalid.
It’s important for legal practitioners, judges, and policymakers to be aware of these nuances in drafting and promulgation of laws. This ensures that legal systems remain robust and compliant with constitutional mandates, minimizing potential legal disputes and ensuring the integrity of judicial processes.
Conclusion
Legislation in India, from drafting to enactment, involves a complex interplay of legislative, executive, and judicial processes. The failure to ratify an ordinance can pose unique challenges, especially when it comes to sentencing and convictions during the ordinance’s validity period. Understanding these processes is crucial for maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that the legal framework remains just and fair.