This presentation is an attempt to explain the colourable legislation in a simple language with the limitations on it and supported by the landmark cases delivered by the apex court.

1. PREPARED BY:
Harsh Vikram Singh
One Year LL.M
BVDU New Law College
Pune

2.  Doctrines are “a rule, principle, theory, or tenet of the law.
 When a legislature makes a law which seems to be in its
legislative competence but in effect and substance lies beyond
its ambit. So such kind of legislation is known as Colourable
Legislation.

3.  The doctrine is based on Latin maxim “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex
directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” .
 Which means that what cannot be done directly, should also not be done
indirectly.
 Colourable legislation would emerge only when a legislature had no power
to legislate or on account of limitations imposed under Part III of the
Constitution.
 In case of K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953 AIR 375)
Supreme Court stated that If the Constitution of a State distributes the
legislative powers amongst different bodies, which have to act within their
respective spheres marked out by specific legislative entries, or if there are
limitations on the legislative authority in the shape of fundamental rights,
enacting it, transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers.

4.  questions do arise as to whether the legislature in a particular
case has or has not, in respect to the subject-matter of the
statute or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the limits
of its constitutional powers.
 This transgress can be direct and indirect and the Doctrine of
Colourable legislation applies to the later class of cases.

5.  It is not applicable in cases where the impugned legislation
does fall under the legislative competence of the legislature.
 It doesn’t extend to cases of subordinate legislation.
 The intention of the legislature while passing an enactment is
irrelevant to decide its validity.
 There shall always be a presumption of constitutional validity
in favour of the enactment.

6.  The principle of presumption was laid down in the case of
Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar &
ors. (1958 AIR 538)

7.  Tara Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1682): In this case
Coal Mines Amendment Act 1976 was challenged on the
ground that Parliament has no power to enact this act. By this
act, all the non nationalised mines lease stand cancelled.
Supreme Court held that the conservation of coal resources is
also in the public interest and it was not a colourable exercise
of legislative power.

8.  Naga People's Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India,
(AIR 1998 SC 431) : In this case, Armed Forced Special Power
Act was challenged on the ground that the parliament has no
competency to legislate on the subject of state matter.
Court held that the act is within the legislative competency
and is not encroaching on the state subject.

9.  S.S. Bola v. Union of India (AIR 1994): In this case court held
that where the legislature travelled beyond its power or
competence on its transgression of the limitation imposed by
the Constitution itself that the enactment would be called a
Colourable Legislation.

10.  The Doctrine of Colourable legislation is also known as Fraud
on the Constitution.
 The failure to comply with a Constitutional condition for the
exercise of legislative power may be either overt or it may be
covert.
 When it is overt we can say the law is bad for the non
compliance of Constitution while when it is covert we can say
that it is a fraud on the Constitution.

11.  Constitutional Law M.P. Jain 8th Edition 2018 p.p. 616-618
 Constitutional Law of India J.N. Pandey 53rd Edition 2016
Central Law Agency, Allahabad p.p. 655-666
 https://www.legalbites.in/doctrine-of-colourable-
legislation/#:~:text=Article%20141%20of%20the%20Constituti
on,precedent%20or%20between%20the%20parties.

12. THANK YOU