The Doctrine Of Colourable Legislation

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

Follow us

The doctrine of colourable legislation is based on the maxim that what cannot be done directly cannot also be done indirectly. The doctrine becomes applicable when a legislature seeks to do something in an indirect manner when it cannot do it directly. Thus, it refers to the competency of the legislature to enact a particular law. If the impugned legislation falls within the competence of the legislature, the question of doing something indirectly which cannot be done directly does not arise.

The Doctrine From The Eyes Of Supreme Court

Legislation may be regarded as colourable when a legislature having no power to legislate frames a legislation so camouflaging the same as to make it appear to fall within its competence. The essence lies in fact that the legislature cannot overstep the field of its competency indirectly. Such an instance is clear fraud on constitution.

The Supreme Court has explained the meaning and scope of doctrine of colourable legislation in the case of K.C. Gajapati  Narayan Deo v. State Of Orissa as follows:

“ If the constitution of a State distributes the legislative powers amongst different bodies, which have to act within their respective spheres marked out by the constitution in specific legislative entries, or if there are limitations on the legislative authority in the shape of Fundamental rights, the question arises as to whether the Legislature in a particular case has or has not, in respect to subject-matter of the statute or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers. Such transgressions may be patent, manifest or direct, but it may also be disguised, covert or indirect, or and it is to this latter class of cases that the expression colourable legislation has been applied in judicial pronouncements.”

Further the Supreme court in this case went to opine that “the idea conveyed by the expression is that although apparently a legislature in passing a statute purported to act within the limits of its powers, yet in substance and in reality it transgressed these powers, the transgression being veiled by what appears, on proper examination, to be mere pretence or disguise.”

In other words, it is the substance of the act that is material and not merely the form or outward appearance and if the subject matter in substance is beyond the powers of the legislature to legislate upon the form in which the law is clothed cannot save it from condemnation. The legislature cannot violate the constitutional prohibitions by employing indirect methods.

Furthermore, in the case of R.S Joshi v. Ajit Mills, The Apex court observed that “In the jurisprudence of power, colourable exercise of or fraud on legislative power or, more frightfully, fraud on the constitution, are expressions which merely mean that the legislature is incompetent to enact a particular law, although the label of competency is struck on it, and then it is colourable legislation.”

It is very important to note that if the legislature is competent to pass a particular law, the motives, which impel it to pass the law are really irrelevant. The doctrine of colourable legislation has reference to the competence and not to motives, bona fides or mala fides of the legislature. The motive of the legislature in the making of a law is irrelevant. It is beyond the scrutiny of courts. The propriety, expediency and necessity of legislative acts are for the determination of legislative authority and are not for determination by the courts. Moreover, if the Legislature has the power to make law, the motive in making the law is “irrelevant.

It is rare that a law is declared bad on the ground of colourable legislation.  The State Of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh is the only case where a law has been declared invalid on the ground of colourable legislation. In this case, the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, was held void on the ground that though apparently, it purported to lay down the principle for determining compensation yet, in reality, it did not lay down any such principle and thus indirectly sought to deprive the petitioner of any compensation.

Conclusion

The Constitution distributes legislative powers between the State Legislatures and Parliament, and each has to act within its sphere. In respect of a particular legislation, the question may arise whether the legislature has transgressed the limits imposed on it by the constitution. Such transgression may be patent, manifest or direct, but it may also be disguised, covert or indirect. It is to this latter class of cases that the expression colourable legislation. The underlying idea is that although apparently, a legislature in passing a statute purported to act within the limits of its powers, yet in substance and in reality it transgressed these powers, the transgression being veiled by what appears, on proper examination, to be mere pretence or disguise. If that is so, the legislation in question is invalid.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -