Parties and roles: Krishna Kumar Singh is the appellant/applicant who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. State of Bihar & Ors. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is an appellate, special or Supreme Court proceeding. Bihar issued a series of near-identical ordinances concerning Sanskrit schools, allowing each to lapse and replacing it with another rather than placing legislation before the Assembly. Employees claimed lasting benefits under the ordinances. The case raised a structural problem: whether the executive can govern indefinitely through temporary emergency legislation and whether rights created during an ordinance automatically survive its expiry. Procedural and real-world context: 1989 onward: Bihar repeatedly re-promulgated ordinances taking over Sanskrit schools without securing legislation. | Earlier litigation questioned their effects after lapse. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve is satisfaction for promulgating an ordinance judicially reviewable? Is repeated re-promulgation constitutional? What happens to rights, liabilities and actions when an ordinance lapses? Must an ordinance be laid before the legislature? The outcome mattered immediately because re-promulgation is a fraud on the Constitution and subverts legislative supremacy. Ordinance-making is conditional and reviewable, not a parallel source of permanent law. Procedural setting: 1989 onward: Bihar repeatedly re-promulgated ordinances taking over Sanskrit schools without securing legislation. | Earlier litigation questioned their effects after lapse. | 02 Jan 2017: Seven-judge bench clarified ordinance power and consequences. The central problem before the Court was is satisfaction for promulgating an ordinance judicially reviewable? Is repeated re-promulgation constitutional? What happens to rights, liabilities and actions when an ordinance lapses? Must an ordinance be laid before the legislature? The controversy was considered in the framework of Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Ordinances, together with Constitution arts.123, 213 and legislative provisions. The wider importance of the case lies in constitutional supremacy; legislative accountability; judicial review of satisfaction; anti-repromulgation; temporary nature of ordinances.

Employees: completed acts and accrued rights under a valid ordinance should survive; repeated promulgation reflected continuing necessity. | State/opponents: an ordinance is temporary, re-promulgation evades legislative control, and enduring consequences require justification or legislation. Competing positions in context: Krishna Kumar Singh's position: as the appellant/applicant, Krishna Kumar Singh sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Constitutional supremacy; legislative accountability; judicial review of satisfaction; anti-repromulgation; temporary nature of ordinances. State of Bihar & Ors.'s position: as respondent, State of Bihar & Ors. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Ordinances and Constitution arts.123, 213 and legislative provisions, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

Re-promulgation is a fraud on the Constitution and subverts legislative supremacy. Ordinance-making is conditional and reviewable, not a parallel source of permanent law. Laying an ordinance before the legislature is a constitutional obligation. On lapse, enduring consequences do not automatically survive; courts examine public interest, constitutional necessity and whether undoing completed acts is impracticable. The earlier broad theory of automatic enduring rights was rejected. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Constitutional supremacy; legislative accountability; judicial review of satisfaction; anti-repromulgation; temporary nature of ordinances and binds the parties to the operative directions made in Civil Appeal No. 5875/1994 and connected appeals. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Ordinances. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Ordinances

Constitution arts.123, 213 and legislative provisions

Constitutional supremacy; legislative accountability; judicial review of satisfaction; anti-repromulgation; temporary nature of ordinances