'Re-issuing ordinances is against convention. Courts have said that re-promulgation of an ordinance is against the Constitution.'
What happens if the land acquisition bill is not passed in the monsoon session of Parliament which starts on July 21?
Can the government issue another ordinance (it has already issued two)? Has it been done before and what have the courts have to say about it?
Former Lok Sabha secretary general and Constitutional expert T K Vishwanathan, below, left, explains to A Ganesh Nadar/Rediff.com the legality of ordinances that the government falls back on before a law is passed in Parliament.
Can the Centre issue another ordinance if it cannot pass the land acquisition bill in the monsoon session of Parliament? The government have already done it twice.
It can be issued. When it is reframed, it is treated as a fresh ordinance. It will be valid for 42 days after Parliament meets.
Is there a precedent? Has it happened earlier?
It has been done many times in the past. It (passing ordinances since a bill could not be passed) the was challenged in the Supreme Court. The bill was passed before that (the Supreme Court could decide). So the Supreme Court did not have to decide. The Supreme Court has frowned upon it in the past.
Is it okay to do so, convention wise?
It is against convention. Courts have said that re-promulgation of an ordinance is against the Constitution.
It depends on every individual case. Convention is that Parliament should make laws.
What are the modalities for calling a joint session of Parliament?
Article 108 clearly states how and when a joint session of Parliament can be called. Certain bills cannot be taken up there.