{"id":107154,"date":"2026-06-08T11:26:25","date_gmt":"2026-06-08T05:56:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=107154"},"modified":"2026-06-08T11:26:25","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T05:56:25","slug":"ordinance-for-additional-judges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/ordinance-for-additional-judges\/","title":{"rendered":"Ordinance for Additional Supreme Court Judges &#8211; Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Ordinance Latest News<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court Collegium&#8217;s acceptance of an Ordinance creating four additional judges&#8217; posts has raised significant questions about judicial independence, security of tenure, and the appearance of detachment from the executive.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>About Ordinances in India<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">An Ordinance is a temporary law promulgated by the President of India under Article 123 of the Constitution.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It is an extraordinary legislative power that can be exercised when Parliament is not in session and when immediate action is necessary.<\/span><\/li>\n<li aria-level=\"1\"><b>Key Features of Ordinances<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Article 123<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Empowers the President to promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Force of Law<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: An ordinance has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament during its operation.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Duration<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: An ordinance ceases to operate six weeks after Parliament reassembles, unless approved by both Houses.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Withdrawal<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: The President may withdraw an ordinance at any time.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Disapproval<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Both Houses may disapprove it by resolution.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Re-promulgation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: While constitutionally permissible, repeated re-promulgation has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Judicial Pronouncements on Ordinances<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court has, over time, established important principles to prevent misuse of the ordinance-making power:<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>D.C. Wadhwa vs State of Bihar (1986)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: The Court held that governance by repeatedly re-promulgated ordinances is a &#8220;fraud on the Constitution.&#8221;<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar (2017)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: A seven-judge Bench ruled against using the ordinance-making power as a parallel source of legislation, emphasising that ordinances are meant for exceptional circumstances.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Judicial Independence as a Basic Feature<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li aria-level=\"1\"><b>Constitutional Framework<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 124(1) of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other judges, not exceeding the number Parliament may prescribe by law.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The number of Supreme Court judges has been increased from time to time through legislation.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>The NJAC Judgment<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act. Key observations included:<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The NJAC, despite its seemingly neutral composition, allowed the Law Minister and one eminent person to potentially veto judicial appointments.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This was held to destroy the judiciary&#8217;s primacy in its own appointments.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court has consistently held that judicial independence is not just about freedom from external pressure but also about the appearance of detachment from the executive.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>News Summary<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On May 16, 2026, the President promulgated an Ordinance lifting the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges. Following this:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Five judges took the oath in Delhi<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Of these, two filled lawful vacancies that already existed (the Court was sitting at 32 against a sanctioned 34).<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Three judges occupy chairs that no statute has created; they sit only by virtue of the Ordinance.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Constitutional Concerns<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The acceptance of the Ordinance by the Supreme Court Collegium raises several significant concerns:<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Security of Tenure<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Three judges hold their positions based on an Ordinance that:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"3\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Can be withdrawn at any time by the President.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"3\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">May be disapproved by either House of Parliament.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"3\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Will cease to operate six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless replaced by an Act.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A court that owes three chairs to a six-week renewable Ordinance holds them at the executive&#8217;s sufferance.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Judicial Independence<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The fundamental concern is whether the court can hold its seats free of obligation to the political branch.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Judges whose tenure depends on the government&#8217;s willingness to convert the Ordinance into an Act may face questions about their detachment in matters involving the Union government.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Appearance of Bias<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In matters touching the Union, the government whose parliamentary majority must regularise the appointments may appear before these judges.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A judge whose tenure lies, even loosely, in one party&#8217;s gift cannot wear the detachment the office demands.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Potential Constitutional Challenges<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li aria-level=\"1\"><b>If the Bill Replaces the Ordinance<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The anomaly closes.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The judges&#8217; positions are regularised through proper legislation.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Constitutional concerns are addressed.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li aria-level=\"1\"><b>If the Bill is Not Passed<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The apex court&#8217;s strength reverts to 34.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The executive cannot bridge the gap by re-promulgation; this would be the &#8220;fraud&#8221; condemned in the Wadhwa case.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The status of judges appointed to Ordinance-created posts becomes uncertain.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Validity of Judgments<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The validity of judgments delivered by judges appointed to Ordinance-created posts is protected under the de facto doctrine, as affirmed in Gokaraju Rangaraju vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1981).\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This doctrine holds that acts of officials who hold office under colour of authority are valid, even if their appointment is later found to be defective.<\/span><\/li>\n<li aria-level=\"1\"><b>Removal Question<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether a judge appointed to an Ordinance-created post can be removed once that post lapses remains constitutionally untested.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Broader Implications<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li aria-level=\"1\"><b>For Judicial Independence<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The acceptance of Ordinance-based appointments may weaken the structural independence of the judiciary.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Sets a precedent for the executive to influence the composition of the court without parliamentary scrutiny.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">May affect the perception of judicial impartiality.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li aria-level=\"1\"><b>For Constitutional Governance<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Raises questions about the proper use of ordinance-making powers.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Tests the limits of the D.C. Wadhwa principle.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Potential for further litigation on the validity of the Ordinance.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li aria-level=\"1\"><b>For the Collegium System<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Collegium&#8217;s acceptance of the Ordinance may be seen as a calculated risk.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Stakes the institution&#8217;s reputation on the political process completing the transition to a statute.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">May affect future negotiations between the judiciary and the executive.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Concerns Raised by Experts<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Security of tenure is a cornerstone of judicial independence that may be compromised.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The appearance of detachment from the executive is essential for public confidence in the judiciary.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Historical precedents like the Roosevelt court-packing plan demonstrate the dangers of executive interference in court composition.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court&#8217;s own jurisprudence in D.C. Wadhwa and Krishna Kumar Singh warns against using ordinances as parallel legislation.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source:<\/b> <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/the-ordinance-question-before-the-supreme-court\/article71073070.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">TH<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court judges ordinance has raised concerns about judicial independence as the Collegium accepted an ordinance creating four additional judges&#8217; posts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":107170,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[60,8014,22,59],"class_list":{"0":"post-107154","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","8":"tag-mains-articles","9":"tag-ordinance","10":"tag-upsc-current-affairs","11":"tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs-tag","12":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107154"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":107165,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107154\/revisions\/107165"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/107170"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}