A division bench of Acting Chief Justice BD Ahmad and Justice Vibhu Bakhru dismissed the plea and said, "We refrain from entertaining the petition." (Agencies)
"There is no material to test that the centre brought the ordinance under special circumstances or ordinary circumstances," the bench said.
The petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court, which had asked him to file the plea in the High Court. Petitioner ML Sharma, an advocate, moved the High Court describing the government's move as "malafide" as the Ordinance would be misused by the ruling party for its pre-election propaganda and political considerations.
Describing the promulgation of the ordinance as "unconstitutional", the PIL said: "Can a bill that had been introduced in parliament but not even debated for the fear of its being defeated on the floor of the Parliament be made into law by taking the ordinance route."
President Pranab Mukherjee had on July 5 signed the Ordinance on Food Security to give two-thirds of the nation's population the right to get five kg of food grains every month at highly subsidized rates of Rs.1-3 per kg.
"There were no emergency circumstances to issue the impugned ordinance. Hence, it does not comply with the terms of Article 123. Therefore, the impugned notification is unconstitutional and is liable to be declared unconstitutional and void," PIL said.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice BD Ahmad and Justice Vibhu Bakhru dismissed the plea and said, "We refrain from entertaining the petition."