The frequent use of the ordinance route to enact substantive law raises concerns about legislative propriety. Discuss with reference to a recent example.

Q. The frequent use of the ordinance route to enact substantive law raises concerns about legislative propriety. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 123 empowers the President to promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session and immediate action is needed. Designed as an emergency legislative device, its routine use for substantive law dilutes Parliament's primacy — as the recent Supreme Court judges strength episode illustrates.

The recent example - The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, promulgated on 16 May 2026 during the inter-session period, raised the sanctioned strength from 33 to 37 judges excluding the CJI (34 to 38 including) [1][2]. - The replacing Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha only on 20 July 2026, passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 August and by the Rajya Sabha on 5 August 2026 [1]. - Opposition members questioned the "hurry" of the ordinance-first approach and walked out, objecting not to the judge increase but to bypassing full debate [1].

Concerns of legislative propriety - Executive law-making: substantive change takes effect before any legislative scrutiny; Parliament is reduced to ratifying a fait accompli. - Loss of deliberation: no committee examination, no amendment stage, limited debate on a measure touching the judiciary's composition. - Judicial caution: in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017), a seven-judge Bench held re-promulgation a "fraud on the Constitution", made laying before the legislature mandatory, and ruled the satisfaction under Article 123 justiciable [3].

The other side - The trigger was genuine — mounting case pendency, tracked in real time on the National Judicial Data Grid [4] — and judicial vacancies cannot await a distant session. - The ordinance was placed before Parliament within the constitutional timeframe and converted into law, satisfying the accountability requirement [1].

Ordinances remain a legitimate bridge for urgent need, not a shortcut around deliberation. Confining them to demonstrable urgency, tabling a statement of reasons, and referring replacement Bills to committees would preserve both administrative speed and parliamentary supremacy — the balance the framers intended under Article 123.

(~315 words)

Sources: 1. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 — PRS Legislative Research — judge strength 33→37 (excl. CJI), Bill introduced 20 July 2026, passed 3 and 5 August 2026, replaces the Ordinance 2. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 — PRS Legislative Research — Ordinance promulgated 16 May 2026 3. Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2 January 2017) — re-promulgation a fraud on the Constitution; mandatory laying before legislature; Article 123 satisfaction open to judicial review 4. National Judicial Data Grid, eCourts — official real-time case pendency data