NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday held that re-promulgation of ordinances by government was constitutionally impermissible as it amounted to bypass the legislative body which was a primary source of law making authority in a parliamentary democracy.A seven judge constitution bench held by majority that government’s decision to bring ordinance can be reviewed by judiciary and said that it was obligatory for the government to place the ordinance before the legislative body for its approval and non-placement of ordinances before the Parliament and the State legislature would itself constitute a fraud on the constitution.The majority verdict by Justices A K Goel, U U Lalit, D Y Chandrachud and L Nageawara Rao held that “Re-promulgation defeats the constitutional scheme under which a limited power to frame ordinances has been conferred upon the President and the Governors.”“The danger of re-promulgation lies in the threat it poses to the sovereignty of Parliament and the state legislatures which have been constituted as primary law givers under the Constitution. Open legislative debate and discussion provides sunshine which separates secrecy of ordinance making from transparent and accountable governance through law making,” it said.Chief Justice T S Thakur , who was heading the bench, also agreed with majority verdict on the issue but differed on other aspect. “I am in complete agreement with the view expressed by my esteemed brother Chandrachud, J. that repeated re-promulgation of the ordinances was a fraud on the Constitution especially when the Government of the time appears to have persistently avoided the placement of the ordinances before the legislature.”Justice Madan B Lokur, however, differed sating “There could be situations, though very rare, when re-promulgation is necessary”.The majority verdict, delivered by Justice Chandrachd said, “The failure to place an ordinance before the legislature constitutes a serious infraction of a constitutional obligation which the executive has to discharge by placing the ordinance before the legislature”.“The laying of an ordinance facilitates the constitutional process by which the legislature is enabled to exercise its control. Failure to lay an ordinance before the legislature amounts to an abuse of the constitutional process and is a serious dereliction of the constitutional obligation,”it said.The court said that apex court’s ‘hope and trust’ that law making through re-promulgated ordinances would not become the norm had been belied by the governments through succession of re-promulgated ordinances.It also ruled the satisfaction of the President under Article 123 and of the Governor under Article 213 is not immune from judicial review.“The test is whether the satisfaction is based on some relevant material. The court in the exercise of its power of judicial review will not determine the sufficiency or adequacy of the material. The court will scrutinise whether the satisfaction in a particular case constitutes a fraud on power or was actuated by an oblique motive. Judicial review in other words would enquire into whether there was no satisfaction at all,” it said.