Doctrine of Colorable Legislation (Article 246) – Indian Polity Notes

Anything prohibited directly, is also prohibited indirectly. While disguising one law, the legislature cannot seek to achieve some other purpose – for which it otherwise is not competent to legislate upon.

Under Article 246 of the Indian Constitution, separate lists have been made on which the Centre and States can legislate on under the VII Schedule.

The VII Schedule includes three lists, the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List.

What is the question that the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation Answers?

According to Article 246, the Centre and the State have demarcated law making powers. But what if an incompetent legislature tries to make a legislation on a subject matter outside its jurisdiction?

For example, what if the Centre tries to make provisions or laws with regards to the laws of a state, which is ideally a state subject?

Or rather, what if an incompetent legislator comes up with a law, which is guise of a different color, but the intent is to legislate on a subject matter outside its jurisdiction?

Thus is the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation applied.

An instance where a legislature tries to legislate upon a subject matter which is outside its scope of jurisdiction, but does so indirectly so that it doesn’t look like it is trying to do that, is called a Colored Legislation.

In such a situation, the apex court can hold the law invalid using the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation.

Example

• The deployment of armed forces is ascribed under the Entry 2A of the Union List, on which only the Centre can make laws.
• Similarly, under the Entry 1 of the State List, public order can be legislated upon by the State.
• The State, thus, cannot make a law, which would involve the deployment of “armed forces” under “public order”, as it would be the case of Colorable Legislation.
• Such a law, would then, be invalidated by the Supreme or the High Court using the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation.

Are there any limitations of the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation?

• In case the legislature doesn’t have any constitutional limitation, the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation cannot be applied.
• Similarly, the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation is not applicable to Subordinate Legislation.
• The burden to prove that the law in question is actually a colored legislation, also falls upon the petitioner. The presumption is always in favor of the law being constitutional.

Doctrine of Colorable Legislation – Important Cases

K.C. Gajapati Narayana Deo and Ors. v. The State of Orissa

Under the K.C. Gajapati Narayana Deo and Ors. v. The State of Orissa Case, the Supreme Court held that the Legislature, in this case the Orissa State Legislature, was competent to make laws on the subject. If further said that the ulterior motive of laying of the Act wasn’t beyond the competency of the State Legislature, and thus, the Orissa Agriculture Income-Tax (Amendment) Act 1950 couldn’t render the law as colorable – thus not void.

State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh

In the State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Singh case, the Court used the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation and declared the Bihar Reforms Act 1950 as invalid.

The law was held invalid as it ostensibly purported to provide for compensation, the law didn’t lay down any such principle and hence implicitly attempted to deprive the petitioner of any type of compensation.

To complete UPSC Polity Notes, Click Here

Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE
Follow our Instagram ID HERE