All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 15-XV Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

Practice Mode:
48.

The petitioner, a professor of political science who had done substantial research and deeply interested in ensuring proper implementation of the constitutional provisions, challenged the practice followed by the state of Bihar in repromulgating a number of ordinances without getting the approval of the legislature. The court held that the petitioner as a member of public has ‘sufficient interest’ to maintain a petition under Article 32 – This relates to the case of

A: Parmanand Katara Vs Union of India - AIR 1989, SC 2039
B: D.C.Wadhwa Vs State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579
C: Neeraja Choudhari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1984SC1099
D: Chameli Singh Vs State of U.P. AIR 1996,SC1051

The answer is: B

<< Previous Question
Next Question >>

Explanation

The correct option is B: D.C.Wadhwa Vs State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579.

This case relates to the challenge of the practice of repromulgating ordinances by the Governor of Bihar without getting them enacted by the legislature. The petitioner, Dr. D.C. Wadhwa, was a professor of political science who had done extensive research on this issue and filed a public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had sufficient interest and locus standi to maintain the petition and that the practice of repromulgating ordinances was unconstitutional and a fraud on the Constitution. The court also laid down guidelines for the exercise of ordinance making power by the Governor under Article 213.