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 ✓ UPSC's answer
(d) I, II and III

Why the answer is (c)

• An Ordinance under Article 123 has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, so it can amend or repeal any Central Act — statement I is correct.

• Like an Act, an Ordinance can be given retrospective effect and come into force from a back date — statement III is correct.

• Statement II is wrong: Article 13(3)(a) defines 'law' to include an Ordinance, so an Ordinance that abridges a Fundamental Right is void under Article 13(2), exactly as an Act would be.

• An Ordinance can be issued only when a House is not in session, must be laid before Parliament and lapses six weeks after reassembly unless approved; the Supreme Court has held (R.C. Cooper, D.C. Wadhwa, Krishna Kumar Singh) that it is subject to judicial review.

• Hence I and III only, option (c).

Why the other options are wrong

(a) I and II only: Statement II is wrong: an Ordinance cannot abridge Fundamental Rights (Article 13).
(b) II and III only: Statement II is wrong; statement I on amending Central Acts is correct.
(d) I, II and III: Statement II is wrong, so all three cannot be correct.

Asked in the GS Paper I of the UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2025, held on 25 May 2025. Question and answer key: Union Public Service Commission. Explanation: UPSC Answer Check.