Doctrine of Colourable Legislation
Doctrine of Colourable Legislation in detail. This is a well-established principle in constitutional law in India.
1. Meaning of the Doctrine
Doctrine of Colourable Legislation refers to the situation when:
A legislature enacts a law beyond its powers (ultra vires),
But disguises it under a law within its power,
To achieve the same effect indirectly.
Principle:
“What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”
It is a principle to maintain the distribution of powers between Union and State legislatures under the Constitution.
2. Importance
Ensures that legislatures do not bypass constitutional limits.
Protects federal balance and separation of powers between Union and State.
Acts as a check against ultra vires legislation.
3. Scope
Applied when the legislature enacts law in a disguised manner.
Relevant in:
Union-State power disputes (Articles 245–254).
Legislative competence under Seventh Schedule.
Indirect infringement of fundamental rights.
4. How the Doctrine Works
Check the Competence:
Examine whether the legislature has authority under the Constitution to enact the law.
Examine the Purpose and Effect:
Even if formally within power, if the substance or effect is beyond power, it is unconstitutional.
Substance over Form:
Courts look at the real intention (pith and substance), not just the label or form of the legislation.
5. Case Law
A. K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953 AIR 149)
Facts:
State legislature passed a law ostensibly concerning land reform, but its main object was to regulate succession to private estates (a Union subject).
Held:
The law was ultra vires because the legislature exceeded its constitutional competence.
Principle:
If a law is disguised to encroach upon Union power, it is invalid.
B. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951 AIR 318)
Facts:
State legislation disguised restrictions on certain religious practices.
Held:
Doctrine of colourable legislation applied; legislation cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
C. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970 AIR 564)
Facts:
Parliament passed the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act.
Held:
Doctrine applied to examine if Parliament acted within legislative competence and did not disguise violation of fundamental rights.
6. Key Principles Established
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Pith and Substance | Courts look at substance, not mere form, to determine legislative competence |
| Direct vs. Indirect Power | Legislature cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly |
| Judicial Review | Courts can strike down laws that violate constitutional limits under colourable legislation doctrine |
| Federal Balance | Ensures Union-State powers are respected under Seventh Schedule |
| Protection of Fundamental Rights | Doctrine prevents indirect encroachment of citizens’ rights |
7. Difference from Doctrine of Eclipse
| Doctrine | Key Feature |
|---|---|
| Colourable Legislation | Law is disguised to exceed legislative power; invalid from outset |
| Eclipse | Law is valid when enacted, but becomes inoperative due to conflict with later constitutional amendment; can revive later |
8. Conclusion
The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is a fundamental principle in Indian constitutional law:
Ensures legislative powers are not exceeded in disguise.
Courts look at substance over form (pith and substance) to determine validity.
Prevents indirect encroachment on Union-State powers or fundamental rights.
Case laws like K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo, F.N. Balsara, and R.C. Cooper highlight its application.
RELATED Blog
0 comments