Colourable exercise of power
Doctrine of Colourable Exercise of Power
What is the Doctrine of Colourable Exercise of Power?
The Doctrine of Colourable Exercise of Power is a principle in administrative and constitutional law that prevents authorities from doing indirectly what they cannot do directly.
It applies when a legislature or administrative body enacts or executes a law or power that is beyond its competence or authority, but disguises or masks the real intention by framing the law or action differently.
Essentially, the law or action may appear to be within authority “on the face” (in form), but in substance, it violates constitutional limits or statutory boundaries.
The doctrine protects the basic structure of the constitution and prevents abuse of power by evasion.
Why is the Doctrine Important?
It ensures the rule of law by preventing authorities from circumventing constitutional or statutory restrictions.
Protects federalism by limiting encroachments on powers of other branches or units of government.
Prevents misuse of delegated or administrative powers.
Ensures genuine exercise of legislative or administrative powers within jurisdiction.
How is it Applied?
Courts look beyond the form and language of a law or administrative action to its substance and purpose.
If the true nature of the action exceeds the authority granted, the court may declare it invalid despite its formal appearance.
It applies in contexts such as legislative competence, delegation of powers, tax laws, and administrative regulations.
Landmark Cases on Colourable Exercise of Power
1. K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Orissa (1953 AIR 130)
Facts: The Orissa legislature passed a law regulating estate administration, but the law had a hidden purpose of affecting succession rights beyond its power.
Issue: Whether the law was a valid exercise of legislative power or a colourable attempt to affect succession laws, which were beyond state jurisdiction.
Held: The Supreme Court held the law was a colourable exercise of power because it disguised a law affecting succession (a federal subject) under the guise of estate administration.
Significance:
Early and classic example of the doctrine.
Emphasized looking at the real purpose of legislation beyond form.
2. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967 AIR 1857)
Facts: The State Electricity Board imposed a levy labeled as “cess” which was effectively a tax beyond its powers.
Issue: Whether the levy was a valid imposition or a colourable exercise of power to tax.
Held: The court ruled it was a colourable exercise of power as the levy was essentially a tax but was imposed without legislative authority.
Significance:
Established the doctrine’s application in taxation and revenue laws.
Prohibited agencies from imposing taxes disguised as fees or cesses.
3. Union of India v. Kamal Jeet Singh (1967 AIR 1643)
Facts: The central government delegated powers to a subordinate authority to make rules, but the rules in substance altered fundamental rights.
Issue: Whether the delegation was valid or a colourable delegation violating the constitution.
Held: The Supreme Court held the delegation and the rules were colourable as they undermined constitutional provisions.
Significance:
Emphasized limits on delegation of legislative powers.
Delegated powers cannot be used to override constitutional safeguards.
4. P. Sambamurthy v. Andhra Pradesh (1957 AIR 694)
Facts: A state law was passed to provide reservations in educational institutions but was challenged as encroaching on central laws.
Issue: Whether the state law was within the state’s legislative competence or a colourable attempt to legislate on central subjects.
Held: The court struck down the law as a colourable exercise of power, emphasizing the division of powers.
Significance:
Reinforced the federal division of powers.
Prevented states from legislating on central subjects by disguising laws.
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980 AIR 898)
Facts: A state authority attempted to enact laws affecting criminal procedure beyond its jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether the legislation was valid or a colourable exercise.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled the law invalid as it exceeded state powers under the Constitution.
Significance:
Protected constitutional distribution of powers.
Prevented legislative overreach through disguise.
6. V.G. Row v. Union of India (1952 AIR 196)
Facts: Central laws relating to contracts and property were challenged as infringing on state powers.
Issue: Whether the central government’s laws were within its power or colourable.
Held: The court examined the real nature of the laws and upheld them if they were within central powers, striking down those that were colourable.
Significance:
Applied the doctrine to federal power disputes.
Reinforced the need to look at substance, not form.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Orissa | 1953 | Legislative competence and succession law | Law struck down as colourable exercise |
| Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal | 1967 | Taxation disguised as cess | Levy invalidated as colourable exercise |
| Union of India v. Kamal Jeet Singh | 1967 | Delegation violating constitutional rights | Delegation and rules held colourable |
| P. Sambamurthy v. Andhra Pradesh | 1957 | State law encroaching central subjects | Law invalidated for being colourable |
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab | 1980 | State legislation beyond jurisdiction | Law struck down as colourable exercise |
| V.G. Row v. Union of India | 1952 | Federal legislation vs. state powers | Applied doctrine; laws struck down if colourable |
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Colourable Exercise of Power safeguards constitutional limits by preventing disguised or evasive misuse of authority.
Courts scrutinize the substance over form to uncover the true purpose and validity of laws or administrative actions.
It applies across legislative competence, delegation, taxation, and administrative actions.
The doctrine reinforces federalism, separation of powers, and rule of law by ensuring powers are exercised within constitutional boundaries.
RELATED Blog
0 comments