The correct answer is a, b and c. Explanation & Key Takeaways: • The decision of the President to issue an Ordinance can be questioned in a court for being malafide. • An Ordinance like any other legislation can be retrospective. • An Ordinance cannot be issued to amend the Constitution. • Hence all the statements are correct. Related Concepts: • Ordinances are like a law but not enacted by the Parliament but rather promulgated by the President of India when Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha or either of those is not in session. • Union Cabinet’s recommendation is a must for an ordinance to be promulgated. • Using ordinances, immediate legislative actions can be taken. • Article 123 deals with the ordinance making power of the President. • President has many legislative powers and this power is one of them. • President’s Ordinance Making Power • When both the houses or either of the house is not in session • Circumstances occur where the President thinks it necessary to act without waiting for houses to assemble. • An ordinance can be retrospective in nature. • An ordinance rolled out when both the houses are in session is void in nature. • The Parliament has to approve the ordinance within six weeks from its reassembly. • Acts, done and completed under the ordinance before it lapses, remains fully active. • The power of ordinance making is not to be taken as a substitute for the legislative power. • Only under special circumstances, ordinances can be rolled out • President’s power to roll out ordinance is justiciable on the ground of malafide • There are the following limitations: • President can promulgate an ordinance only when both the houses are not in session or only one house is in session. • For an ordinance to be promulgated, such circumstances should be there which deem it necessary for President to legislate through the ordinance.