Judicial Doctrines, List of Doctrines of Indian Constitution

A Judicial Doctrine is a principle, belief, or position, often held by authorities such as courts. Know more about the Doctrine of eclipse, severability, pith & substance etc.

Table of Contents

Judicial Doctrines

A doctrine is a principle or belief often held by authorities like courts. It can be a rule or a legal theory. In India, there are several important judicial doctrines under the Constitution.

This doctrine states that the fundamental structure of the Indian Constitution cannot be changed, even by a constitutional amendment. This means Parliament cannot make laws that alter the Constitution’s basic structure. Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it has developed through various Supreme Court rulings.

List of Judicial Doctrines in Indian Constitution

Here is the complete List of Doctrines in the Constitution of India provided below:

The doctrine of Pith and substance

Pith and Substance means looking at the true nature and essential part of a law. This doctrine was first recognized in the Canadian Constitution and was adopted in India during the pre-independence period under the Government of India Act, 1935.

Applicability:

The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is used to determine if a law relates to a specific subject listed in the Seventh Schedule. Courts examine the true nature of the law in these cases. It also applies when there are conflicts between laws made by Parliament and those made by State Legislatures, helping to resolve inconsistencies.

Important Judgment:

In Prafulla v. Bank of Commerce (1946), the Supreme Court ruled that a State law on money lending is valid even if it affects promissory notes incidentally.

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation, also known as “Fraud on the Constitution,” applies when a legislature lacks the authority to create a law on a specific subject but tries to do so indirectly. This principle helps determine whether the legislation in question is valid. It comes from a Latin maxim meaning that if a legislature cannot do something directly, it cannot do it indirectly.

Constitutional Provision:

This doctrine is often applied to Article 246, which outlines the legislative powers of Parliament and State Legislatures, covering different subjects in the Union, State, and Concurrent lists.

Limitation:

The doctrine doesn’t apply if a legislature has no constitutional restrictions on its powers. It also doesn’t apply to subordinate legislation.

Important Judgment:

In R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills (1977), the Supreme Court stated that if a legislature tries to make a law it isn’t allowed to, even if it appears competent, it is considered colourable legislation.

Doctrine of Delegated Legislation

Executive authority is granted powers by primary legislation to create laws or similar rules. In the case D.S. Gerewal v. State of Punjab (1959), the court used this doctrine to confirm that the All India Service Act of 1951 was constitutional. It stated that Article 312 of the Indian Constitution does not restrict the power to delegate authority.

Doctrine of Necessity

This doctrine is used to justify the state’s violation of rights or actions outside the Constitution in extreme situations to restore peace and stability. In Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the court ruled that this doctrine should only be applied in exceptional cases.

Doctrine of Pleasure

The doctrine of pleasure comes from English law, where a civil servant serves at the pleasure of the Crown.

Constitutional Provisions:

Article 155: The Governor of a State is appointed by the President and serves at the President’s pleasure.
Article 310: Civil servants (like those in the Defence and Civil Services) hold their positions at the pleasure of the President or Governor.

Limitation:

Article 311: This article limits the doctrine by protecting civil servants from arbitrary dismissal.

Important Judgments:

In State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954), the Supreme Court ruled that not all English Common Law was fully adopted in India.
In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1965), the Supreme Court stated that the “pleasure doctrine” is based on public policy, not on feudal traditions or British prerogatives.

Doctrine of Eclipse

The Doctrine of Eclipse is applied when a law violates Fundamental Rights (FR). In this case, the FR takes precedence, making the law unenforceable, but not completely void. The law can be enforced again if the restrictions on Fundamental Rights are removed. This doctrine only affects citizens; the law remains applicable to non-citizens who do not have Fundamental Rights.

Constitutional Provisions:

The Doctrine of Eclipse is mentioned in Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution and does not apply to laws made after the Constitution was adopted.

Important Judgment:

The doctrine was first introduced in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955). The Supreme Court ruled that a law allowing the Provincial Government to control motor transport violated Article 19(1)(g) and became temporarily eclipsed by the Fundamental Right.

Doctrine of Severability

The Doctrine of Severability, also known as the doctrine of separability, protects citizens’ Fundamental Rights. According to Article 13(1) of the Constitution, if any law conflicts with Fundamental Rights, that part of the law is void, but the rest remains valid. This doctrine originated in England from the case Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company Ltd., which involved a trade clause.

Limitation:

If the valid and invalid parts of a law are too closely connected to separate, then the entire law may be declared invalid.

Important Judgments:

In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court ruled that only the conflicting part of a law is void, not the whole law, and efforts should be made to preserve as much of the law as possible.
In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), the Supreme Court declared certain sections of the Bombay Prohibition Act invalid, stating that the invalid parts could be separated from the rest of the act.

Doctrine of Territorial Nexus

The doctrine states that laws made by a State Legislature apply only within that state unless there is a clear connection between the state and the subject of the law.

Constitutional Provisions:

This doctrine is based on Article 245 of the Indian Constitution. Article 245(2) says that no law made by Parliament can be declared invalid just because it applies outside India.

Important Judgments:

In A.H. Wadia v. Income Tax Commissioner (1948), the court ruled that the issue of a law’s extraterritoriality cannot challenge its validity.
In State of Bombay vs. RMDC (1952), the Supreme Court decided that there was enough connection for the Bombay Legislature to tax the respondent since most relevant activities occurred in Bombay.

The doctrine of Implied Powers

Implied powers are those not explicitly given by the Constitution to authorities like Parliament or the Supreme Court, but are assumed to be necessary for fulfilling their responsibilities. In the case Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchant’s Association v. The State of Bombay, the Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine of Implied Powers, stating it can only be used if enforcing the law would be impossible without those powers.

Doctrine of Incidental or Ancillary Powers

The Doctrine of Incidental or Ancillary Powers is an extension of the Doctrine of Pith and Substance. It is used when there is a need to support the main legislation by allowing laws related to the subject matter. This doctrine originates from the English Court of Appeal case R. v. Waterfield (1963).

Constitutional Provisions:

Article 4: Allows for changes in laws related to altering state names under Articles 2 and 3.
Article 169: Grants Parliament the power to create or abolish Legislative Councils in states, including necessary supplemental or incidental provisions.

Important Judgment:

In State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla (1958), the Supreme Court stated that the power to legislate on a main topic also includes the power to legislate on related matters that are reasonably connected.

Doctrine of Precedent

Article 141 of the Indian Constitution establishes that the Supreme Court’s laws and decisions are binding on all courts in India. In the case Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, the court ruled that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of religious texts is a binding precedent.

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

Harmonious Construction is a way of interpreting laws that ensures all provisions of a law work together without conflict. When a law has multiple meanings, it should be interpreted so that each meaning is effective and none are ignored. The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction developed through various court interpretations, starting with the landmark case Shankari Prasad v. Union of India.

Principles:

In the case CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003), the Supreme Court outlined five key principles of this doctrine:

Courts should avoid direct conflicts between seemingly contradictory provisions and interpret them together.
One section’s provisions cannot override another’s unless reconciliation is impossible.
If full reconciliation isn’t possible, courts should interpret the provisions to give effect to both as much as they can.
Courts must avoid interpretations that render one provision useless.
The goal is to harmonize without destroying any part of the law.

Important Judgments:

In the Re-Kerala Education Bill 1951 case, the court stated that when considering fundamental rights, it must also take into account directive principles, balancing both.
In East India Hotels Ltd. v. Union of India (2001), the court held that an Act must be read as a whole, harmonizing all its provisions.

FAQs

What does the meaning of judicial doctrine?

A judicial doctrine is a principle, belief, or position, often held by authorities such as courts

What are the doctrines of judicial review?

judicial review, power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution.

What is Doctrine of Eclipse?

According to the Doctrine of Eclipse, laws that violate fundamental rights are not always unconstitutional.

What does Doctrine of Pith and Substance signify?

The doctrine holds that the state and union legislatures are made paramount within their respective areas and should not intrude onto the territory designated for the other.

What does doctrine of severability mean?

When a certain law provision violates or conflicts with a constitutional requirement and is severable from the remainder of the statute, only that provision will be found invalid.