Doctrine of Colourable Legislation: Meaning, Cases & Article 246

The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is a judge-made doctrine based on the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

If a legislature lacks legislative competence to enact a law on a particular subject, it cannot achieve the same result by disguising the law as one falling within its competence. The doctrine examines the substance of the law, not its form or appearance.

Object of the Doctrine

1. To maintain constitutional division of powers
2. To prevent legislative fraud on the Constitution
3. To protect federal balance
4. To ensure legislative accountability

When Does the Doctrine Apply?

The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation applies when:

1. A legislature lacks competence over a subject
2. The law is camouflaged to appear within jurisdiction
3. The real object or effect is to encroach upon another legislature’s domain or to do something which is prohibited by law.

In State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952), the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was enacted to abolish the zamindari system and acquire estates and tenure-holders’ interests. The Act, though appearing to provide compensation, in substance confiscated property as the manner of computation of compensation substantially reduced or nullified real compensation.

At the relevant time Article 31(2) mandated payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition (though the said provision was later repealed through 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978). The Court found that the legislature could not directly take property without compensation. It attempted to do so indirectly by framing a compensation formula that was unreal and arbitrary. This amounted to doing indirectly what could not be done directly.

The Supreme Court applied the Doctrine of Colourable Legislation by piercing the veil of legislative form to examine the real substance and effect of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. While recognizing the State’s competence over land reforms, the Court invalidated provisions that indirectly sought to confiscate property under the guise of compensation, thereby preventing a fraud on the Constitution.

In K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953), the Supreme Court laid down following guidelines with respect to Colorable Legislation :

1. Courts must examine the true nature, character, and effect of the legislation. The label, form, or drafting technique is irrelevant.
2. A legislature cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.
3. Even a bona fide law may be colourable if it transgresses constitutional limits.
4. Where the legislature has clear authority over the subject-matter the doctrine of colourable legislation cannot be invoked even if the law appears harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.
5. Every legislation carries a presumption of constitutionality. The burden lies on the person who challenges lack of legislative competence.

 

Judex Tutorials

Judex Tutorials is a premier Judiciary coaching institute in Patna, Bihar, dedicated to prepare law students for judicial services exams. Whether you prefer online judicial classes, offline sessions, or need access to recorded lectures, we offer flexible preparation options. If you like our blog as class notes, follow and subscribe our social media platforms on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube as well.