The Ordinance-making power of the President under Article 123 has historically served as an instrument of economic regulation. Examine with reference to the Emergency period (1975–77) and the constitutional safeguards built into this power.

Q. The Ordinance-making power of the President under Article 123 has historically served as an instrument of economic regulation. Examine with reference to the Emergency period (1975–77) and the constitutional safeguards built into this power. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 123 empowers the President to promulgate an ordinance when Parliament is not in session and immediate action is necessary, giving it the force of an Act [1]. Historically, this urgency clause has functioned less as a crisis tool than as an instrument of economic regulation — most visibly during the Internal Emergency.

Why Article 123 suits economic regulation - The power is co-extensive with Parliament's legislative competence; railways being a Union subject, freight law could be rewritten by the executive alone [1]. - Hoarding, artificial scarcity and price spikes move faster than a parliamentary session, making speed the decisive attraction.

The Emergency experience (1975–77) - An Ordinance of 25 September 1975 targeted traders detaining railway wagons as godowns to create artificial scarcity and inflate prices [2]. - It was converted into the Indian Railways (Amendment) Bill, 1976, passed by the Rajya Sabha on 12 January 1976, amending the Indian Railways Act, 1890 [2][3]. - Substance: a seven-day delivery window; unlifted essential commodities routed to cooperative fair price shops, other goods sold by public auction, proceeds credited to the consignor after freight and auction costs [2]. This destroyed the demurrage arbitrage hoarders relied on. - The distributive design echoes Article 39(b) [1], yet it also normalised executive economic policing in a period of suspended accountability.

Safeguards and their limits - Temporal: every ordinance must be laid before both Houses and lapses six weeks after reassembly [1] — the 1976 Bill was precisely that compliance. - Substantive: it cannot exceed Parliament's competence or abridge Fundamental Rights [1]. - Judicial: the 38th Amendment (1975) made presidential satisfaction non-justiciable; the 44th Amendment (1978) restored review [1], and Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) held laying mandatory and re-promulgation a fraud on the Constitution [4].

Article 123 is therefore a legitimate bridge for urgent economic action, but its safeguards work only ex post. Their strength lies less in text than in an alert legislature and judiciary — the direction the 44th Amendment and later jurisprudence have steadily reinforced.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India — India Code, Ministry of Law & Justice — Article 123 conditions, six-week laying rule, scope of ordinance power, Article 39(b), 38th/44th Amendment position 2. "Bill to prevent Ry. wagons being used as godowns passed" — The Hindu print archive, 13 January 1976 — Ordinance of 25 September 1975, Rajya Sabha passage, seven-day rule, fair price shop/auction disposal, demurrage incentive 3. The Railways Act, 1989 — India Code — parent Indian Railways Act, 1890 and its later supersession 4. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) — Supreme Court of India, Digital SCR — mandatory laying before the legislature; re-promulgation a fraud on the Constitution