Malcolm Rivera
The Indian Constitution is underpinned by several key doctrines, which are rules, principles, theories, or tenets of the law. These doctrines guide the interpretation and application of the Constitution and are often invoked in court cases. One such doctrine is that of the separation of powers, which seeks to balance power between different state components. Another is the doctrine of pith and substance, which holds that the union and state legislatures should not encroach upon each other's spheres and is used to examine the true nature of legislation. The Indian Constitution also includes an express provision for judicial review, which gives the Supreme Court and High Courts the power to investigate the validity of any law and proclaim it illegal if it conflicts with the Constitution's provisions.
Doctrines in the Indian Constitution
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Separation of Powers | To strike a balance between different state components |
| Colourable Legislation | To prevent the legislature from indirectly making laws on subjects outside its purview |
| Individual Rights | To ensure the state respects all legal rights owed to a person and that laws conform to fairness, fundamental rights, and liberty |
| Basic Structure | To prevent the parliament from altering or destroying certain basic features of the constitution |
| Judicial Review | To allow the Supreme Court and High Courts to investigate the validity of any law and proclaim it illegal if it conflicts with the constitution |
| Doctrine of Pith and Substance | To prevent encroachment between the union and state legislatures and to examine the true nature of legislation |
| Doctrine of Severability or Separability | To protect the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution by voiding inconsistent pre-constitution laws |
| Doctrine of Eclipse | To clarify that provisions related to fundamental rights have no retrospective effect and inconsistent laws are only void from the commencement of the constitution |
| Doctrine of Repugnancy | To resolve disputes between the States and Union arising from inconsistencies between state-made and Union-made laws |
| Doctrine of Territorial Nexus | To establish that laws made by a state legislature are not applicable outside that state unless there is a sufficient nexus between the state and the object |
| Rule of Harmonious Construction | To interpret provisions of the constitution as a whole, removing inconsistencies and giving effect to opposing provisions |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation
The Indian Constitution is based on the doctrine of power separation, which mandates a balance of power between different state components. The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, but it is an important principle that has evolved through various Supreme Court and High Court judgements.
The doctrine comes into play when a legislative body does not possess the power to make laws on a particular subject but nonetheless attempts to do so indirectly, under the garb of another legislation. It is based on the maxim that "what cannot be done directly, cannot also be done indirectly". The doctrine tests the competence of the legislature against an enacted law and helps to regulate the legislative authority of the government bodies. It is usually applied to Article 246 of the Constitution, which outlines the legislative competence of the Parliament and the State Legislatures.
The judiciary has interpreted this doctrine through its judgements to protect the federal nature of the country. The doctrine provides the judiciary with the authority to prevent any unconstitutional expansion of legislative spheres by the centre or any state. In R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills (1977), the Supreme Court observed that the colourable exercise of power by a legislative body is an indication of incompetence and a misrepresentation of the constitution.
Local Governance: Indian Constitution's Decentralized Approach
You may want to see also
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance
The Indian Constitution is based on several doctrines, including the 'Doctrine of Pith and Substance'. This doctrine is a foundational legal principle in constitutional law, providing a framework to discern the true nature and scope of legislation, especially in cases of intersection with multiple areas of jurisdiction within federal systems.
The doctrine was first established in the Canadian case of Cushing v. Dupuy in 1880, which laid the groundwork for the principle of ancillary or incidental encroachment, clarifying the boundaries of legislative authority. It was subsequently adopted in India, where it is recognised by Article 246 of the Indian Constitution and the Seventh Schedule. The Seventh Schedule, comprising the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists, divides the scope of legislative powers between the Centre and states.
The doctrine is important as it provides flexibility to the Indian constitutional scheme. Without it, laws could be easily declared invalid on the grounds of encroaching upon the subject matter of another sphere. It ensures the harmonious allocation of legislative authority, maintaining the integrity and functionality of constitutional arrangements within federal systems.
The Journey of a Bill in Indian Constitution
You may want to see also
The Doctrine of Judicial Review
The power of judicial review includes the ability to investigate the validity of any law and proclaim it illegal and irrelevant if the Court finds that the law conflicts with the Constitution's provisions. In other words, judicial review refers to the ability of the court to determine whether laws and administrative orders issued by the federal and state governments are legitimate. Judicial review has been used to protect and enforce the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution, such as in the case of Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997), where the Supreme Court ruled that workplace sexual harassment violates women's basic rights.
Judicial review also plays a role in legitimizing government action and protecting the constitution from any undue encroachment by the government. It helps to ensure that the government's actions remain within the bounds of the Constitution and that laws passed by the legislature follow the provisions of the Constitution. Judicial review can be used to correct or change previous decisions by the judiciary itself. The constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order can be challenged in the Supreme Court or the High Court on the grounds that it violates the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
In conclusion, the doctrine of judicial review in the Indian Constitution is a powerful tool that helps uphold the rule of law, protect citizens' rights, and maintain the balance of power between the different branches of government. It serves as a cornerstone of Indian democracy, ensuring that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.
The Evolution of Appendices in India's Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Race and Ethnicity in America: From Pre-contact to the Present [4 volumes]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/A17VpGiI7jL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The Doctrine of Territorial Nexus
The Indian Constitution provides for two types of jurisdictions: territorial jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. The Doctrine of Territorial Nexus is derived from Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the territorial division of law-making power between the Union and the States.
According to the Doctrine of Territorial Nexus, laws made by a state legislature are not applicable outside that state unless there is a sufficient nexus between the state and the object. This means that the state laws would be void if they were given extraterritorial operation without a significant connection to the state. The doctrine states that for a state law to have an extraterritorial operation, there must be a nexus between the object and the state.
Indian Constitution: Unique Features and Global Standout
You may want to see also
The Doctrine of Repugnancy
The Indian Constitution is an amalgamation of unitary and federal characteristics. Due to its federal nature, conflicts can arise between the centre and the states regarding the scope, extent, and distribution of their powers. The Doctrine of Repugnancy, established by Article 254 of the Indian Constitution, aims to resolve these conflicts.
Article 254 of the Indian Constitution, 1950, deals with the inconsistency or contradiction between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States. This is with respect to law-making powers under List III of the Constitution, i.e., the Concurrent List. The word 'repugnancy' is commonly taken to mean inconsistent or incompatible. A situation of repugnancy between two laws arises when there is an inconsistency or opposition between them or when there is an inconsistency between two or more clauses of the same deed, statute, or contract.
However, Article 254(2) provides an exception. In the case of a law made by the State Legislature that is repugnant to a parliamentary law enacted under List III, the State law shall prevail in that State if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received their assent. This doctrine reflects the quasi-federal structure of the Constitution of India and clearly lays down the powers of the Parliament and State legislature to avoid inconsistencies and conflicts.
The Supreme Court has also played a role in the evolution of the Doctrine of Repugnancy. In the case of State Of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah & Ors, (2008), the Court did not find any repugnancy between Sections 13-16 of the Maharashtra Act of 1999 and Section 5(2) of The Indian Act. In another case, the Supreme Court held that both the Bombay Act and the Central Act occupied the same field and could not be split up, thus declaring the State laws void and allowing the Central law to prevail as per the doctrine of repugnancy.
Constitutional Bodies of India: A Comprehensive Overview
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
There is no fixed number of doctrines in the Indian Constitution, as they are interpretations of the law that can evolve over time.
This doctrine is applied when a legislature does not have the right to make a law on a particular subject but does so indirectly. The court must then assess the substance of the law, its object and effect, and any related legislative plans to determine its validity.
This doctrine is applied when there is a conflict between the subjects of two different lists. It examines the true nature of a legislation and decides whether it belongs to the central or state list.
This doctrine refers to the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to interpret the Constitution and determine the validity of laws and government orders. If a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the court can declare it void.
This doctrine states that laws made by a state legislature are not applicable outside that state unless there is a sufficient nexus between the state and the object of the law.
Established by Article 254, this doctrine acts as a safeguard to solve disputes between states and the Union, arising from inconsistencies between state-made and Union-made laws.
