Judicial Doctrines| Important

Share it

Table of Contents

List of Important Judicial Doctrines

A doctrine is a principle, theory, or position that is usually applied and upheld by courts of law. In Indian Constitutional law, these are developed over time as per the interpretation given by the judiciary.

The Doctrine of Basic Structure

The Basic Structure Doctrine basically contends that the basic structure of the Indian Constitution cannot be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.
It follows that the Parliament cannot enact a law that would alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
This doctrine is not mentioned in the Constitution and has evolved over time and in many Supreme Court judgments.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, the Supreme Court of India for the first time ruled that the parliament has the power to amend any part of the constitution but it cannot alter the “basic structure of the constitution”.

The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

According to this doctrine, a provision of the statute should not be interpreted or construed in isolation but as a whole, so as to remove any inconsistency or repugnancy.
The courts must avoid a clash on contradicting provisions and they must construe the opposing provisions so as to harmonize them.
When the court is unable to reconcile the differences between opposing provisions, the courts must interpret them in such a manner that both opposing provisions are given effect as much as possible.
The basis of this rule is that the Legislature never envisages providing two conflicting provisions in a statute, for the reason that it amounts to self-contradiction.

Hence, even if an inconsistency is found, the same should be considered to be unintentional and as such, is required to be cured by way of harmonious construction.
This doctrine was brought about to bring harmony between the different lists mentioned in Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India.

The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

This Doctrine is also called “Fraud on the Constitution”.
The doctrine of colourable legislation checks if the legislature has transgressed its power mentioned in the constitution.
In simple words, the doctrine checks if a law has been enacted on a subject indirectly when it is barred from legislating on that topic directly.
The expression “Colourable Legislation” means “what can’t be done directly, can’t be done indirectly as well”.

Doctrine of Eclipse

The doctrine states that if any law becomes contradictory to the fundamental rights, then it does not permanently die but becomes inactive.
As soon as that fundamental right is omitted from the Constitution, the inactive law becomes revived.
They can be reinforced if the restrictions posed by the fundamental rights are removed.
It is only against the citizens that these laws/acts remain in a dormant condition but remain in operation as against non-citizens who are not entitled to fundamental rights.
When a court strikes a part of the law, it becomes unenforceable. Hence, an ‘eclipse’ is said to be cast on it. The law just becomes invalid but continues to exist.
The eclipse is removed when another (probably a higher level court) makes the law valid again or an amendment is brought to it by way of legislation.
Supreme Court first applied this doctrine in the case of Bhikaji vs State of Madhya Pradesh where it applied to pre-constitutional law. The extension to the post-constitutional law was stated in the case of Dulare Lodh vs ADJ Kanpur.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance

Pith means ‘true nature’ and Substance means ‘the most important or essential part of something’.
This doctrine comes into picture when there is a conflict between the different subjects in different lists. There is an interpretation of List 1 and List 2 of the Constitution of India.
There can be a situation when a subject of one list touche the subject of another List. Hence this doctrine is applied then.

The real subject matter is challenged and not its incidental effect on another field.
The doctrine has been applied in India also to provide a degree of flexibility in the otherwise rigid scheme of distribution of powers.
The reason for the adoption of this doctrine is that if every legislation were to be declared invalid on the grounds that it encroached powers, the powers of the legislature would be drastically circumscribed.
It was applied by the Supreme Court in the case State of Bombay Vs F.N Balasar.
Apart from its applicability in cases related to the competency of the legislature (Article 246), the Doctrine of Pith and Substance is also applied in cases related to repugnancy in laws made by Parliament and laws made by the State Legislatures (Article 254).

The Doctrine of Incidental or Ancillary Powers

It indicates that if a legislative body has the power to legislate on a particular matter, then they have the power to legislate on ancillary topics related to that matter. Unless that ancillary topic is mentioned explicitly under the jurisdiction of another legislative body.
For example, the power of the central government to impose income tax would include the ability to examine and seize property in order to prevent income tax evasion. Powers connected to banking, on the other hand, cannot be extended to non-banking businesses.
However, a subject cannot be considered auxiliary if it is specifically specified in a State or Union list.
For example, pilgrimage is a state subject but it cannot include pilgrimage outside India is not ancillary as it is a separate entry in the Union List.
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance deals only with subjects but the Doctrine of Incidental or Ancillary Powers deals with the power to legislate on such subjects and the matters connected thereto.

Doctrine of severability of Indian constitution

It is also known as the doctrine of separability and protects the Fundamental Rights of the citizens.
The doctrine derives its validity from Article 13 which states, “All laws in force in India, before the commencement of the Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of fundamental rights shall to the extent of that inconsistency be void.”
As an extension of Article 13, the doctrine states that when some particular provision of the statute infringes or violates the fundamental rights, but the provision is severable from the rest of the statute, and then only that provision will be declared void by the courts and not the entire statute.
The doctrine essentially lays down that if violative and non-violative provisions are separated in a way that the non-violative provision can exist without the violative provision, then the non-violative provision will be upheld as valid and enforceable.

Doctrine of Territorial Nexus

It says that laws made by a State Legislature are not applicable outside the state, except when there is a sufficient nexus between the state and the object.
It derives its power from Article 245 of the Indian Constitution. Article 245 (2) provides that no law made by the Parliament would be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation i.e. takes effect outside the territory of India.
Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Tata Iron Steel vs. the State of Bihar.

Doctrine of Laches

It states that the court will only assist those people who are vigilant about their rights and not those who are not.
The underlying principle is that the court should not examine stale cases, because the court is to help an individual or party that is vigilant and not indolent.
Lapse of time violates equity and it is against the concept of justice.

Hence the issue came up whether delay can be a ground to deny fundamental rights under Article 32.
It was said that denial of fundamental rights only on the ground of delay is not justified as fundamental rights are basic and very essential for the development of the individual.

Also, refer :