With reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements: [Union Legislature]

I. An Ordinance can amend any Central Act.
II. An Ordinance can abridge a Fundamental Right.
III. An Ordinance can come into effect from a back date.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

The correct option is I, II and III.

Under Article 123 of the Constitution of India, the President has the power to promulgate Ordinances during the recess of Parliament. An Ordinance has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. Below is the step-by-step breakdown of why each statement is correct:

Statement I: An Ordinance can amend any Central Act.
Since an Ordinance possesses the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, it can amend or repeal any existing Act of Parliament (Central Act) or even another Ordinance. It can also alter or amend tax laws, just as a regular Act of Parliament would.

Statement II: An Ordinance can abridge a Fundamental Right.
Article 13(3) of the Indian Constitution defines "law" to include an Ordinance. Therefore, an Ordinance is subject to the same constitutional limitations as any ordinary law passed by Parliament. Just as Parliament can enact ordinary laws to place reasonable restrictions on or abridge certain Fundamental Rights (within the constitutional framework, such as during emergencies or under specified clauses of Article 19), an Ordinance can similarly abridge or restrict a Fundamental Right to the same extent as a regular Act of Parliament.

Statement III: An Ordinance can come into effect from a back date.
Like an Act of Parliament, an Ordinance can be retrospective in nature. This means it can be active and take effect from a past date (back date), validating actions or changing laws retroactively.