Q. With reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements:

I. An Ordinance can amend any Central Act.
II. An Ordinance can abridge a Fundamental Right.
III. An Ordinance can come into effect from a back date.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) I and II only
(b) II and III only
(c) I and III only
(d) I, II and III

81. भारतीय राज्य-व्यवस्था के संदर्भ में, निम्नलिखित कथनों पर विचार कीजिए:

I. अध्यादेश किसी केन्द्रीय अधिनियम को संशोधित कर सकता है।
II. अध्यादेश किसी मूल अधिकार को न्यून कर सकता है।
III. अध्यादेश किसी पिछली तारीख से प्रभावी हो सकता है।

उपर्युक्त कथनों में कौन-कौन से सही हैं?

(a) केवल I और II
(b) केवल II और III
(c) केवल I और III
(d) I, II और III

Answer: (c) I and III only

Explanation:

• Statement I is correct: Under Article 123 of the Constitution, an Ordinance issued by the President has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament.
• Therefore, an Ordinance can amend, repeal, or replace an existing Central Act.
• Statement II is not correct: An Ordinance cannot abridge or take away Fundamental Rights because it is subject to the same constitutional limitations as parliamentary legislation.
• Any law, including an Ordinance, violating Fundamental Rights can be declared unconstitutional by the courts.
• Statement III is correct: The Supreme Court in T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985) held that an Ordinance can have retrospective effect and may come into operation from a back date.
• Thus, Statements I and III are correct.

Source:
Constitution of India

T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh