With reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements:

Answer: (c) I and III only

Same force as an Act (so it can amend Acts and be retrospective), same limits as an Act (so it cannot abridge FRs).

Statement by statement

1. ✓ CORRECT Under Art. 123(2) an ordinance has “the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament”, so it can amend or repeal a Central Act (it cannot amend the Constitution).

2. ✗ WRONG Art. 13(3)(a) includes “ordinance” in the definition of law, and Art. 13(2) voids any law that takes away or abridges a Fundamental Right.

3. ✓ CORRECT Like an Act, an ordinance can be made retrospective.

The idea

Ordinance rules (Art. 123): only when either House is not in session; President must be satisfied that immediate action is needed; lapses 6 weeks after Parliament reassembles (max ≈ 6 months + 6 weeks). Krishna Kumar Singh (2017): re-promulgating without placing it before the legislature is a fraud on the Constitution.

Parliament not in session → President promulgates (Art. 123) → reassembly + 6 weeks → lapses unless approved

Why the others are wrong

(a) Accepts II — but Art. 13 treats an ordinance as “law”, so it cannot abridge a Fundamental Right.

(b) Drops I: an ordinance can amend a Central Act because it has the force of an Act.

(d) II fails the Art. 13 test.

The trap

An ordinance is often thought of as a “lesser” law, so III (retrospective) looks wrong. It has the same force as an Act, retrospective effect included.