Colourable exercise of power in administration
I. Meaning of Colourable Exercise of Power
The doctrine of "colourable exercise of power" is based on the Latin maxim:
"Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum"
(What cannot be done directly cannot also be done indirectly.)
In administrative law, this principle implies that when an authority does something in the guise of its legal power but in reality does it for an unauthorised or improper purpose, it is said to be a colourable exercise of power. The form may appear legal, but the substance or intent reveals misuse or abuse of power.
It is not the presence of power that is questioned but how the power is exercised.
II. Essential Elements
Existence of Power – The authority must have the power under law.
Improper Use – The power is used for an ulterior motive.
Disguised Purpose – The real intent is different from what appears on the surface.
Malafide Intent – Sometimes involves bad faith, political vendetta, or personal bias.
III. Key Case Laws Explained in Detail
1. K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953 AIR 375, SCR 1)
Facts:
The Orissa Agricultural Income Tax (Amendment) Act was challenged. The petitioner claimed that the law was colourable legislation—although the subject was stated to be taxation (a state subject), its true purpose was to target certain zamindars unfairly.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that a law can be declared invalid if the legislature has transgressed its constitutional limits under the guise of using its legislative power. Even though the Act appeared to deal with taxation, its real intent was to confiscate property of certain individuals, hence it was a colourable exercise of power.
Significance:
The court emphasized that legislative competence must be assessed both on form and substance. If the intent is disguised, it is not valid.
2. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279)
Facts:
The Government of India constituted a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the affairs of certain companies. Dalmia challenged the inquiry, arguing that it was targeted solely at him and his business interests, thus a misuse of administrative power.
Held:
While the Commission was within the government's power under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, the Court said if power is used to harass or for ulterior motives, it can be struck down. However, in this case, the Court upheld the inquiry, finding no malafide intent.
Significance:
The Court reaffirmed that the motive behind using administrative power is relevant. The appearance of legality cannot protect actions driven by bad faith.
3. Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1986 AIR 872, SCR (2) 287)
Facts:
The government issued eviction notices against Express Newspapers for alleged lease violations. The company argued that it was being targeted for its editorial stance, and the action was politically motivated.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that administrative actions should be free from political bias or vendetta. Though the government had power over the lease, the timing and targeting of the action revealed malafide intent, hence it was struck down.
Significance:
This case showed that even routine administrative powers, when used for political retaliation, can be held invalid due to colourable exercise.
4. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952 AIR 252, 1952 SCR 889)
Facts:
The Bihar Land Reforms Act was passed to abolish zamindari. A provision allowed the government to acquire private estates. The petitioner claimed that the law was designed to expropriate zamindars without proper compensation under the guise of public purpose.
Held:
The Supreme Court accepted that a law can be declared unconstitutional if the declared objective is not genuine. In this case, though, the Court found that land reform was a legitimate public purpose and not colourable.
Significance:
While the Court upheld the Act, it clarified the test for colourable legislation:
"If the real object is different from the stated one, then the action is invalid."
5. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979 AIR 1628, 1979 SCR (3) 1014)
Facts:
A contract for running a restaurant at the Bombay airport was awarded to a private party, bypassing a more qualified bidder. The Court was asked to examine whether the award of the contract was influenced by extraneous considerations.
Held:
The Court ruled that public authorities cannot act arbitrarily. Even if the power to award contracts is administrative, if used dishonestly or for a collateral purpose, it is a colourable exercise of that power.
Significance:
Administrative discretion must be used fairly, rationally, and for lawful purposes. Otherwise, it violates Article 14 (equality before law).
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Power Misused For | Held | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| K.C. Gajapati | Targeting zamindars | Invalid | Legislative intent must be honest |
| Ram Krishna Dalmia | Alleged political bias | Valid (No malafide proven) | Motive must be shown to invalidate |
| Express Newspapers | Political vendetta | Invalid | Political misuse = colourable |
| Kameshwar Singh | Alleged property grab | Valid (public purpose upheld) | Real v. stated purpose is key |
| R.D. Shetty | Arbitrary contract award | Invalid | Public power must be non-arbitrary |
V. Conclusion
The doctrine of colourable exercise of power ensures that legal form is not misused to cover illegal or improper intent. It acts as a check on arbitrary or malafide administrative actions, reinforcing principles of transparency, accountability, and rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments