Submitted By: Bhumika Singh

Enrollment No.: 02717703823

 Dr. D.C. WADHWA & Ors V. STATE OF BIHAR
AIR 1987 SC 579

FACTS
• The petitioner challenged the repromulgation of three ordinances by the
Governor of the state of Bihar: Bihar Forest Produce 1983, Bihar
Intermediate Education Council 1983 and Bihar Bricks supply 1983.
• Article 213 grants the governor power to issue ordinances during
emergencies or when the legislature is not in session, similar to Article 123
for the president.
• Ordinances must be enacted into law by the legislature within six weeks or
they expire.
• The Bihar government repromulgated 256 ordinances between 1967-1968,
some lasting up to 14 years, which the court deemed unconstitutional.

ISSUES
Whether the governor can go on repromulgating ordinances for an indefinite period
of time and take over the power of the legislature to legislate through the powers
vested under article 213?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

• The petitioner, who was a professor of economics in Gokhale Institute of
Politics & Economics, filed the writ petition as he was interested in the
preservation of the constitutional functioning of administration in the
country.
• The petitioner was prevented from selling the forest produce to any other
purchaser other than mentioned in the ordinance and his right to dispose off
the forest land was affected.
• Therefore, he challenged the constitutional validity of the ordinance.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

 • The respondent contended that the petitioner had no right to maintain the
writ petitions in the court, as out of the 3 ordinances, 2 of them had already
lapsed.
• They also contended that petitioners are not authorized to challenge as they
are outsiders who have no legal interest to challenge the validity of the court.
• The respondent also contended that the writ petition filed against The Bihar
Intermediate Education Council third ordinance is entirely academic in
nature and should not be interceded by the court. This ordinance has already
been introduced in the parliament in the form of a legislative proposal.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
• The court held that the repromulgation of ordinances by the governor of
Bihar was unconstitutional and void.
• It emphasized that the governor cannot assume legislative functions beyond
the constitutional limits.
• Repeated repromulgation of ordinances was deemed contrary to the
constitutional scheme and therefore invalid.
• The court stressed that the power of the state, whether legislative or
executive, must adhere to the constraints of the constitution.
• It ruled that ordinances should only be issued by the governor in times of
emergency when the legislature is not in session.

OBITER DICTA:
• The court expressed hope that such unconstitutional practices would not
continue in the future.
• The court suggested that if the government wishes to continue the provisions
of an ordinance after the legislature assembles, a bill should be brought
before the legislature for enactment.
• The court emphasized the importance of placing every ordinance before the
legislature and ensuring they have a limited lifespan to prevent misuse of
power.

CONCLUSION:
The judgment in this case holds great constitutional law importance as it examines
the executive’s power to legislate through the repromulgation of ordinances while
highlighting the importance of ensuring that laws are made in accordance with the
Constitution.