Amendments And Constitutional Fathers

Hello sir, I have a doubt regarding this question on ordinance making power of president. Sir the 3rd provision was added through a Supreme Court judgement and later supported by the 44th amendment so can we say it's a provision added by constitutional fathers?

Who are constitutional fathers?

My understanding is the members of the constituent assembly

Yes

I dint get you sir

Well, the constituent Assembly members were the fathers.

Every amendment is a result of the provisions provided by the original version

The fathers enabled the constitution to be amended

I would therefore go by the original version of the constitution to see what they say about ordinances

So then is statement 3 Incorrect with respect to the original provisions of the constitution?

Sir, as such even now the constitution doesn't have it explicitly written that 'it can be questioned in court on the basis of malafide.' This was a court interpretation....

Is 4 part of the constitution or is an explanation or a commentary?

It ceases to exist if parliament doesn't pass it in 6 weeks sir n this is written in the constitution itself

Yes sir it’s inherent

Good. Another operative word in the question is 'imply'

I am subject to correction, but I would go with B

1,2&4 sound logical and 3 is a subsequent interpretation

So subsequent interpretations can't be taken for original provision even though amendments which enable including these provisions are originally part of the constitution

Yes

They do form part of the constitution after passed by the parliament and will have the same force. However, as the name goes, they are amendments