Difference Between Ordinance and Act in India, Clearly Explained

The difference between ordinance and act is about who makes the law and how long it lasts. An ordinance is a temporary law issued by the executive, the President at the Union level or a Governor in a state, when the legislature is not in session and something cannot wait. An act is a permanent law passed by the legislature through the full bill process and given assent. Both have the force of law while in effect, but only an act is durable by design. For more explainers on how Indian governance works, see newsreverse com.

Ordinances often make the news when a government wants to act quickly and Parliament or a state assembly is not sitting. Critics then ask whether the urgency is real or whether the executive is simply avoiding debate. To judge that for yourself, it helps to know exactly what an ordinance is, and how it differs from an ordinary act.

What is an act?

An act is a law made by the legislature. A proposal is introduced as a bill, debated and voted on in both Houses, and, once passed, sent for assent. At the Union level that assent comes from the President; in a state, from the Governor, subject to the constitutional provisions. Once assented to, the bill becomes an act and remains in force until it is amended or repealed by the legislature.

The defining feature of an act is legitimacy through deliberation. It reflects the will of the elected legislature, expressed after debate and a vote. That is why an act is treated as the normal, permanent form of law, and why the process, though slower, is considered the proper route for making rules that bind everyone.

What is an ordinance?

An ordinance is a law promulgated by the executive when the legislature is not in session. At the Union level, the President issues ordinances under Article 123 of the Constitution; in a state, the Governor does so under Article 213. In both cases the executive acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and only when immediate action is considered necessary and the legislature is not available to pass a law.

An ordinance has the same force and effect as an act while it is in operation. It is, however, a temporary measure. The Constitution requires that it be laid before the legislature when it reassembles, and it is designed to lapse unless the legislature approves it within a set time. The ordinance route exists for genuine situations that cannot wait for the next session, not as a shortcut around lawmaking.

Difference between ordinance and act at a glance

How long does an ordinance survive?

An ordinance must be placed before both Houses of the legislature when they reassemble. It ceases to operate at the expiry of six weeks from the date the legislature reassembles, unless it is approved before then. If both Houses are in session, that six-week clock runs from the date they meet. The executive can also withdraw an ordinance at any time.

To make an ordinance permanent, the government introduces a bill covering the same ground and gets it passed as an act within the window. If the legislature does not approve it, the ordinance lapses. Anything already done under it while it was valid may still have consequences, which the courts have examined, but the ordinance itself does not continue.

• Approved as a bill: the ordinance effectively becomes an act, and is permanent.
• Not approved in time: the ordinance lapses after the six-week period.
• Withdrawn earlier: the executive can end it before that.

Can a government keep re-issuing ordinances?

This is where the debate sharpens. Because ordinances lapse, a government tempted to avoid the legislature might simply re-issue the same ordinance again and again. The Supreme Court addressed exactly this in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, where a seven-judge bench held that re-promulgating ordinances to keep them alive without placing them before the legislature is a fraud on the Constitution. The Court underlined that ordinances are an emergency power, not a parallel way to make lasting law.

That judgment matters because it draws a line. An ordinance is legitimate when there is a real need to act before the legislature can meet. It becomes an abuse when it is used to sideline debate. The requirement to lay it before the legislature is the safeguard that keeps the executive answerable.

Are there limits on what an ordinance can do?

An ordinance is not a blank cheque. It can only be issued on matters on which the legislature itself is competent to make law, so an ordinance cannot reach subjects outside the relevant legislative list. It is also subject to the same constitutional limits as an ordinary law, including the fundamental rights. A court can strike down an ordinance on the same grounds it could strike down an act, for example if it violates a guaranteed right or exceeds legislative competence. In other words, the temporary nature of an ordinance does not exempt it from constitutional scrutiny.

There is a further safeguard specific to states. Under Article 213, a Governor must, in certain situations, reserve an ordinance for the consideration of the President, or seek instructions, before promulgating it, particularly where a corresponding bill would have needed the President’s assent. These conditions exist so that the ordinance route does not become a way to sidestep checks that would apply to the ordinary legislative process.

Why do governments use ordinances?

Governments turn to ordinances for a mix of reasons. Sometimes the reason is genuine: a legal gap emerges suddenly, a court strikes down a provision and leaves a vacuum, or an economic situation demands an immediate rule that cannot wait months for the next session. In such cases the ordinance is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

At other times, critics argue, ordinances are used to avoid an uncomfortable debate or to act while the opposition cannot scrutinise the measure. Because the same instrument serves both honest urgency and political convenience, each ordinance is best judged on its facts: Was the legislature genuinely unavailable? Was the matter truly pressing? Was the ordinance later placed before the legislature and passed as an act, or quietly allowed to lapse and re-issued? These questions separate legitimate use from misuse.

Why does the difference matter for citizens?

When a rule affecting you is introduced by ordinance, it is worth asking two questions: was the legislature genuinely unavailable, and will the ordinance be converted into an act. Because an ordinance is temporary, a right or obligation it creates could vanish if the legislature does not approve it, which affects planning and certainty. An act, by contrast, offers stability because it has already cleared the legislature.

Ordinances also connect to wider questions about the balance between the executive and the legislature. If you follow how bills move through Parliament, you will see that some laws begin life as ordinances and are later regularised. Our politics and governance section tracks these developments, and readers interested in how legislators are held to party lines during votes may also find our explainer on the anti-defection law useful, since it shapes how bills, including those replacing ordinances, are actually passed.

What happens to actions taken under a lapsed ordinance?

One tricky question is what becomes of things done while an ordinance was in force, if the ordinance later lapses without being turned into an act. This was central to the Krishna Kumar Singh case. The Court took the view that the effect of a lapsed ordinance is not automatically to wipe out everything done under it; instead, the consequences are assessed on principles of public interest and constitutional necessity, looking at whether unwinding an action would be impractical or unjust. What the Court firmly rejected was the idea that rights and obligations could be made permanent through an ordinance that was never approved by the legislature.

For an ordinary reader, the practical lesson is caution. If an important entitlement rests only on an ordinance, its long-term security depends on the legislature converting it into an act. Until that happens, the position is provisional. This is a meaningful difference from an act, which, having already been passed, provides certainty from the outset and does not carry the risk of lapsing.

The bottom line

An act is permanent law made by the legislature after debate and a vote. An ordinance is temporary law made by the executive under Article 123 or Article 213 when the legislature is not sitting, carrying the same force while it lasts but designed to lapse unless approved within six weeks of reassembly. The ordinance power exists for genuine urgency, and the courts have made clear it cannot be stretched into a habit of re-promulgation. Knowing the difference lets you read a new law correctly, and ask the right questions about how, and why, it was made.