The SC Ordinance Is a Warning About Parliament

Resources for this Article

Audio Notes

Download PDF

Every fact web-verified against primary sources How

Indian Express | Editorial | June 3, 2026

The SC strength ordinance bypasses Parliament’'s deliberative function. This is less about the immediate measure than about the normalisation of ordinance use as a governing tool — demanding judicial vigilance and parliamentary reform.

The Argument in One Line

Ordinances are emergency safety valves, not governing shortcuts — using one to increase SC strength normalises executive bypass of Parliament’'s deliberative primacy.

The Constitutional Provision

Provision	Detail
Article 123	President can promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session AND immediate action is necessary
Validity	Same force as Act of Parliament; must be placed before Parliament within 6 weeks of reassembly; lapses if not approved
SC review	D.C. Wadhwa (1987); Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) — ordinances cannot circumvent Parliament

What the Ordinance Did

• Raised sanctioned SC strength from 34 to 38 (incl. CJI) — a significant constitutional change.
• Could have been introduced as a Bill in Parliament’s last session.

UPSC Relevance

Paper	Relevance
GS2	Polity — Article 123, separation of powers, ordinance power, parliamentary supremacy
Prelims	Article 123 (ordinances); D.C. Wadhwa case 1987; Krishna Kumar Singh 2017; ordinance lapses in 6 weeks

Sources: Indian Express, PRS Legislative Research

Source: The SC Ordinance Is a Warning About Parliament — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis

Key Arguments at a Glance

The executive’s recourse to an ordinance to increase SC strength — rather than introducing a Bill in Parliament — reflects a pattern of bypassing legislative deliberation, raising constitutional concerns about checks and balances and demanding urgent parliamentary procedural reform and judicial vigilance to preserve the separation of powers.

✓ Supporting

• Article 123 allows the President to promulgate ordinances “if at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session” he is satisfied that circumstances exist which render immediate action necessary — the provision is an emergency safety valve, not a routine legislative pathway.
• Increasing the SC’s sanctioned strength is a significant constitutional change affecting the judiciary’s capacity; it merits Parliamentary debate and scrutiny, not executive unilateralism — the subject matter itself highlights the tension between two branches of government.
• The pattern of ordinance use — particularly for measures that Parliament could have addressed in the preceding session — signals that the executive treats Parliament as a ratification chamber, not a deliberative body.

⚠ Counter

The government argues that the SC backlog was urgent and the ordinance expedited relief to litigants; critics concede that some urgency existed but maintain that the measure could have been introduced in Parliament’s last session with the same legislative outcome and more democratic process.

→ Way Forward

Require the government to justify any ordinance in a “necessity statement” tabled with Parliament; limit the scope of Article 123 to genuine national emergencies through a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court ruling on ordinance power’s proportionality; streamline Parliament’s schedule to reduce the temptation of ordinance route.