Interpretation Of The Constitution

* The Constitution of India is a fundamental law. It being in the form of a statute, the various principles of interpretation are applicable to the interpretation of the Constitution also.

* As stated by Craies, The general rules adopted for construing a written constitution embodied in a statue are the same as for construing the other statutes. As is the case with the ordinary statutes, the court likewise attempts to find out the intention of the framers of the Constitution from the words used by them.

* Where more than one reasonable interpretation of a constitutional provisions possible, that which would ensure a smooth and harmonious working of the Constitution shall be accepted rather than the one that would lead to absurdity or give rise to practical inconvenience or make well-existing provisions of existing law worthless (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh).

* The Constitution must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner giving effects to all its part and the presumption should be that no conflict or repugnancy was intended by its framers. It cannot be construed in a narrow and pedantic sense. While interpreting the Constitution a construction most beneficial to the widest possible amplitude(extent) must be adopted. (Kesavanand Bharathi case)

* The fact that the Constitution itself incorporates the various principles of statutory interpretation is clear from Article 367(1) which states that, unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptation (version) and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of this Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature.

The courts have ruled that not only the general definitions given under the General Clauses Act, 1897 but also the general rules of construction given therein are applicable to the Constitution.

* Examples : the word ‘offence’ under Article 20 has been held to mean the same thing as stated in section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the term ‘person’ in Article 226 has been held to have the same meaning as given in section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Different  principles which have frequently been discussed by the courts while interpreting the Constitution are discussed below–

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

The doctrine of prospective overruling means that the law declared by the court applies to the cases arising in future only.

Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967) or simply the Golaknath case, was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case. This case was decided on Feb 27, 1967. In this case, the Supreme court gave the judgement that the Indian Parliament has no power to curtail Fundamental Rights which are given under Part III of the Constitution.

This case was heard by a constitutional bench of 11 judges. In this case, the Chief justice Kokka Subba Rao had first time invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling. This doctrine is taken from the American Judicial system.

Here In this case, it was held that this doctrine can be invoked only in constitutional matters ‘but now it has been extended to the interpretation of the ordinary statutes as well’.

The Supreme Court by a majority of 6 to 5, prospectively overruled its earlier decision in Shankari Prasad’s case and Sajjan Singh’s cases and held that Parliament had no power from the date of this decision to amend part-III so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights. In this case, Subba Rao, C.J., supported his judgment on the following reasonings :

1. The Chief Justice rejected the argument that power to amend the Constitution was a sovereign and it is outside of judicial review.
2. The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution is derived from Article 245, read with Entry 97 of List 1 of seventh schedule and not from Art.368. Article 368 lays down merely the procedure for amendment of the Constitution. Amendment is a legislative procedure
3. An amendment is a ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13(2) and therefore, if it violates any of the fundamental rights, it may be declared void.

The Chief Justice said that the fundamental rights are assigned transcendental (extraordinary) place under our Constitution and, therefore, they are kept beyond the reach of Parliament. The Chief Justice applied the doctrine of prospective overruling and, therefore, the 1^st, 4^th and 17^th Amendment will continue to be valid. It means that all cases decided before the Golak Nath’s case shall remain valid.

Article 13 of the Constitution of India :

Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights:

(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void

(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void

(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas

(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368 Right of Equality

Doctrine of Severability

The doctrine of severability means that a law is void only “to the extent of the inconsistency or contravention” with the relevant Fundamental Right according to Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.

The above provision means that an Act may not be void as a whole, only a part of it may be void and if that part is severable from the rest which is valid, and then the rest may continue to stand and remain operative.

The Act will then be read as if the invalid portion was not there. If, however, it is not possible to separate the valid from the invalid portion, then the whole of the statute will have to go.

This doctrine of severability is also known as the doctrine of separability. 

The law here does not only include the legislation but also an ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification. This means that, the State cannot make any law which takes away the fundamental rights of the individual. Importance of Article 13 is that it has provided basis for judicial review of all legislations in India, past as well as future.

All laws whether made by legislature or by a delegated authority and all executive acts must respect and confirm to the fundamental rights. The ordinance promulgated by the president under Article 123 or by the Governer under Article 213 must also not be inconsistent with the implement the fundamental rights.

State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara : Eight sections of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 were declared invalid by the court on the ground that they were violative of certain fundamental rights. The SC held that the parts declared unconstitutional were severable from rest of the Act .

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras : The SC said that, in case of repugnancy to the Constitution, only the repugnant provision of the impugned Act will be void and not the whole of it, and every attempt should be made to save as much as possible of the Act. If the omission of the invalid part will not change the nature or the structure of the object of the legislature, it is severable. It was held that, except section 14 all other sections of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 were valid, and since section 14 could be severed from the rest of the Act, the detention of the petitioner was not illegal.

R.M.D.Chamarbaugwala v. UOI : This is a landmark judgement on the point of doctrine of sevearability. The question involved was as to whether the definition of prize competition in section 2(d) of the Prize Competitions Act, 1955 which covered within it both competitions of skill and gambling could be interpreted as limited to competitions of gambling alone. Applying the grammatical and mischief rules of interpretation the SC concluded that, the expression ‘prize competition’ would mean only prize competitions of a gambling nature in the Act.

Further the SC went on to add that by holding prize competition to be a competition of a gambling nature, the nature and character of the Act was not affected and there was no need to rewrite any of the provisions. They thus could be severed in their application and enforcement of the law of competitions of skill would be restrained by appropriate order.

Doctrine of Eclips

The Doctrine of Eclipse is based on the Principle that a law which violates Fundamental Rights is not nullity or void ab initio but becomes only unenforceable. It is Overshadowed by the Fundamental Rights and remains dormant, but it is not dead. 

• According to Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
• Such laws are not dead, they remain inactive they are in dorment state, not wiped out entirely from the statute book.
• They come alive if the restrictions posed by the fundamental rights of the constitution are removed. Also, such eclipsed laws are operative for cases that arose before the commencement of the Constitution. Hence, the Current Fundamental Rights eclipse the Contravening part of those laws, rendering(providing) that part of the law as dormant.

Deep Chand Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) :
In this case, the supreme court held that a post-constitutional law made under article 13 (2) which contravenes a fundamental right is nullity from its Inception and a stillborn law. It is void ab initio. The doctrine of eclipse does not apply to post-constitutional laws and therefore, a subsequent Constitutional Amendment cannot revive it. The Doctrine of eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional law and not post-constitutional law. Again in 1963, in Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of UP, the SC approved this majority view of Deep Chand’s case and held that the doctrine of eclips applies only to post- constitutional law.

But in State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974), the SC modified its view expressed in Deep Chand and Mahendra Lal Jains’s cases and held that, a post Constitutional law which is inconsistent with fundamental rights is not nullity or non-existent in all cases and for all purposes. A post-Constitutional law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by Article 19 will be operative as regards to non-citizens because fundamental rights are not available to non-citizens.

Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay

The question were as to whether a prosecution commenced under section 18, Indian Press(Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, before the coming into existence of the Constitution, could be continued even after the presence of Article 13(1) in the Constitution and whether the Act violated Article 19(1)(a) and (2). The SC by majority, held that the prosecution would continue because the Constitution could not be given a retrospective operation in the absence of an express or necessary implied provision to that effect nor was there anything to that effect in Article 13(1) of the Constitution.

It is also stated that, such laws which are overshadowed, are not wiped out entirely from the statute book. They exist for all past transaction, and for the enforcement of rights acquired and liabilities incurred before the present Constitution came into force and for determination of right of persons who have not been given fundamental rights by the Constitution e.g., non-citizens.

When a Court strikes a part of 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.

The Supreme Court of India, in P Ratinam case ( P. Rathinam v. UOI, 1994) has held Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (attempt to commit suicide) unconstitutional. (‘The right to live’ under Article 21 includes the ‘Right not to live’, i.e. right to die.)

Hence, the section was under eclipse.

However, a constitutional bench in Gian Kaur case (Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1996) reversed this decision and held the section as constitutional whereby the eclipse was removed and it because operable again.

Different principles which have frequently been discussed by the courts while interpreting the Constitution are discussed below.

Principle of Implied Powers

Before going through the manner in which our Supreme Court has dealt with this doctrine, let us discuss the dictionary meaning of the term ‘implied power’. Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘implied power’ as: “A political power that is not enumerated but that nonetheless exists because it is needed to carry out an express power.”

Concise law dictionary define implied power as “Implied powers are such as necessary to carry into effect those which are expressly granted and which must therefore be presumed to have been within the intention of the grant”.

Thus as the name suggests, ‘implied power’ is something that has existence by virtue (merit) of express power and is something without which an express power cannot be exercised.

It is an established principle of interpretation that, whenever certain powers are granted by the Constitution or some restrictions put by it, all powers that are needed for the exercise or performance of the same are by implication also conferred by it, and this naturally means that these implied powers are also constitutional.

But it should be remembered that these powers should be in limitation and should not be ultra vires the Constitution.

The Tobacco Merchants Case (Bidi Bidi Leaves and Merchants Association v. State of Bombay)  discusses various definitions relating to the Doctrine of Implied Powers. It starts with ‘Craies on Statute Law’ which says that:

“One of the first principles of law with regard to the effect of an enabling act is that if a Legislature enables something to be done, it gives power at the same time by necessary implication to do everything which is indispensable for the purpose of carrying out the purposes in view.”

Thus the importance of this Doctrine comes into play in cases where it is observed that the Statute confers a duty upon an Authority and that duty cannot be discharged or that power cannot be exercised unless some ‘other’ power is assumed to exist and in absence of such ‘other’ power, the obligation prescribed under the Statute becomes impossible to comply with. The impossibility must be of such nature that it has no exceptions and the Statute would become a dead letter if that ‘other’ power is not assumed.

The SC has observed that the principle of implied powers could be held to be applicable wherever it would be impossible to enforce the material provisions of the Constitution.

But in Ramkrishna v. Municipal committee, The SC has cautioned that the courts must be very cautious while interpreting express powers vis-à-vis implied power in order to prevent a broader interpretation unnecessarily given.

Thus in no other circumstance can this doctrine be invoked. Only and only where there is an impossibility of enforcement to the express provisions of a Statute, the existence of some deemed power can be held to be valid. In all the other circumstances where the express power could be given effect to without assuming any ‘other’ power, the Doctrine of Implied Powers would have no applicability.

Doctrine of Implied Powers v. Casus Omissus

The Doctrine of Implied Powers is neither similar to nor an offshoot of the latin maxim ‘casus omissus’.

The Doctrine of Implied Powers does not talk about cases or situations that have been omitted or forgotten in the statute rather the Doctrine of Implied Powers is only concerned with situations where an express provision could not be given effect without assuming something. On the other hand, ‘casus

omissus’ specifically deals with a situation where a situation has been completely left out in the statute and there is nothing express in the statute to cover the said situation. Hence there is a thin yet a visible line of difference between the Doctrine of Implied Powers and ‘casus omissus’.

Implied procedural powers are common in Indian law when it comes to the interpretation of statutes. However, implied constitutional procedural powers are quite rare.

State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok is a recent one(2013), where the Supreme Court held that Article 316 of the Constitution, which grants the Governor of a State the power to appoint the Chairman and other members of the State Public Service Commission, also grants the implied power to lay down the procedures for such appointments.

Principle of Incidental and Ancillary Powers

This principle is similar to the principle of implied powers

This principle is an addition to the doctrine of Pith and Substance.

What it means is that the power to legislate on a subject also includes the power to legislate on ancillary matters that are reasonably connected to that subject.

For example, the power to impose tax would include the power to search and seizure to prevent the evasion of that tax.

The Constitutions of certain nations specifically give to their law-making body incidental and ancillary powers of legislation. But even in those Constitutions where such powers have not been specifically bestowed, the law-makers are deemed to be in possession of such powers so that they are in a position to legislate effectively. The argument that, when there is /no express mention of this power in the Constitution no such power exists is not convincing because it is presumed that some such power must exist for the smooth working of the Constitution.

The Parliament and State Legislatures have been constitutionally empowered to legislate in the designated fields mentioned in the Unions and State List respectively and both can make laws in the Concurrent List. With these powers exist the implied power to make laws incidental to the exercise of such power. The grant of power includes everything necessary to exercise that powers, is a basic principle of interpretation.

For example, the power to legislate on banking would also include all the related powers to legislate on matters like functions of banks, the composition of their boards, relationship with RBI, etc. Similarly, the power to legislate on an entry dealing with forests would include the power of afforestation, deforestation, planning and management of forest as ancillary matters.

As held in the case of State of Rajasthan vs G Chawla, the power to legislate on a topic includes the power to legislate on an ancillary matter which can be said to be reasonably included in the topic.

However, this does not mean that the scope of the power can be extended to any unreasonable extent. Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against such extended construction.

For example, in R M D Charbaugwala vs State of Mysore, SC held that betting and gambling is a state subject as mentioned in Entry 34 of State list but it does not include power to impose taxes on betting and gambling because it exists as a separate item as Entry 62 in the same list.

Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar :

Power to legislate on any specific subject includes power to enact a law retrospectively if a previous law on that subject has been declared unconstitutional.

The following are examples of some of the provisions of the Constitution that reflect the power to make law on incidental matters:

Article 4 provides the power to make law on matters supplemental, incidental, and consequential to the law providing for adding of states under Article 2 and 3.

Article 110 and 199 define money bill for both the Union and the States. It includes “any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f)” of the respective articles

Article 145 provides the power to the Supreme Court to make “rules as to the costs of and incidental to any proceedings in the Court and as to the fees to be charged in respect of proceedings therein”

Likewise in many Articles of the Constitution there are provisions for making laws which may be incidental or ancillary.

Principle of Occupied Field

In India, the Constitution grants specific areas of legislation to the Union Parliament and the State Legislature in the form of Union list and State list respectively and one cannot enchroach upon the power of the other. It is the Concurrent list where both the Parliament and State Legislature have been empowered to enact laws, where the problem comes.

When the Parliament makes a law on a particular subject matter, it occupies the field on that subject matter. This is the principle behind occupied field.

If the State Legislature makes any law on that field which is occupied by the Parliament, then such a law made by the State Legislature to the extent it deals with the occupied field, becomes unconstitutional.

Article 254 of the Indian Constitution is related to the principle of occupied i.e. repugnancy between a Central Law & a State Law.

Article 254 in The Constitution Of India

254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States

(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause ( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.

T.K.T.S.S.S Medical and Educational Charitable Trust v. State of TN : The Tamil Nadu Medical University Act, 1987, a State Act was repugnanent to section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 which is a Central Act.

The Indian Medical Council Act covers the entire field for establishing new medical colleges, and as such, the State Legislation had no scope of operation. The Supreme Court held that, the Tamil Nadu Act was void on the ground of repugnancy with the Central Act.

Principle of Residuary Power

Literal meaning of residury is the remains or which is left over. Therfore the meaning of residuary power means the power which is left over by any organisation or government.

In case of india , all the subjects (whatever it is) are devided in 3 list namely union list (97 subject) state list (66 subjects) and cuncurrent list (47 subject) . For subject mentioned in union list only parliament can make law eg military is union subject so parliment can only make law in respect of military and state cannot. Police and public order is state subject therefore only state legislature can make law to regulate it. There are common subject eg criminal law and proceedure on which both state and parliament can make law but law made by parliament will prevail.

Almost every thing is covered in these list.. But,

What if there is any thing new emerged in this world of new technology eg mobile tv internet artificial intelligence which is not fitting in any category of subject mentioned in all 3 list.

It this case of ambiguity parliament reserve “ residuary power” to make law on any such subject.

Article 246 deals with the subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the State Legislature. As per Article 246(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not in/cluded in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State list.

Article 248 deals with the Residuary powers of legislation :

(1) Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List

(2) Such power shall include the power of making any law imposing a tax not mentioned in either of those Lists.

Thus the residue power of legislation is vested in the Parliament by virtue of Article 248 and Entry 97 of List I.

The State Legislature is not competent to exercise the residuay power.

Naga Peoples Movement of Human Rights v. UOI : It was said that while examining the legislative competence of Parliament to make a law, all that is required to be seen is whether the subject matter falls in list II which Parliament cannot enter.

Article 13(3) : In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India……

Legislation : The act of making, giving or en/acting laws. The enactments of a legislature or a legislative body.

Delegated Legislation

Legislation made by a person or body other than the Parliament, by virtue of powers conferred either by statute or by legislation which is itself made under statutory powers.

Factors responsible for the growth of delegated legislation :

The practice of delegating power to make subordinate legislation has greatly increased in the modern times due to the following reasons :

• Pressure on Parliamentary time : Increasing mass of legislation necessary to regulate affairs of complex modern state.

• Technicality of subject-matter : Expertise knowledge not expected of the legislators.

• Opportunity for experimentation : Delegated legislation is more flexible. Easily amendable and revocable than ordinary legislation.

• Unforeseen contingencies : Enables a government to deal with problems which could not be foreseen when passed.

• Emergency powers : During the emergency quick and decisive
• action necessary. The legislature is not fit to serve this end so it is delegated to executives.

Delegatus non-potest delegare

( A delegate cannot delegate )

• It’s a Latin Maxim whose literal meaning is “One to whom a power is delegated, cannot himself further delegate that power”.
• Explanation :The maxim is a principle in the constitutional and administrative law which means that a person to whom an authority or decision-making power has been delegated to from a higher source, cannot, in turn, delegate again to another unless the original delegation explicitly authorized it. In simple terms, a delegate cannot re-delegate. In general, the maxim deals with delegation.
• Generally, Delegated Legislation means the law made by the Executive under the powers delegated to it by the Legislature. And it is also called as ‘secondary legislation’ or ‘subordinate legislation’ or ‘subsidiary legislation’.
• The rule that a person to whom a power, trust, or authority is given to act on behalf, or for the benefit of, another, cannot delegate this obligation unless expressly authorized to do so. For instance, an auditor who has been appointed to audit the accounts of a company cannot delegate the task to another unless expressly allowed to do so. If express authorization has not been granted the auditor will have acted ultra vires.
• Delegated legislation is also recognized by the Constitution under the provisions of Article 13(3).
• Section 3(51) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 defines ‘Rule’ as ‘Rull’ shall mean a rule made in exercise of power conferred by any enactment and shall include a regulation made as a rule under any enactment.
• Section 21 & 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 are relevant to implied powers in relation to make regulations, orders, rules or bye-laws.
• Sub-delegation of power to make subordinate legislation is ultra vires the enabling Act except where the enabling Act expressly authorizes such sub-delegation.
• The maxim does not embody a rule of law. It indicates a rule of construction of a statute or other instrument conferring an authority.

In Democratic Bar Association vs. High Court of Judicature, the Allahabad High Court held that “the maxim delegatus non potest delegare does not enunciate a rule that knows no exception; it is a rule of construction to the effect that a discretion conferred by a statute is prima facie intended to be exercised by the authority on which the statute has conferred it and by no other authority, but this intention may be negative by any contrary indications found in the language, scope or object of the statute.”

In Ultra Tech Cement Limited vs. The Union of India and Ors., the Kerala High Court held that “Sub-delegation implies a further delegation of the same power, which was originally delegated by the legislature. The governing principle is that legislative powers must be exercised by the delegatee himself and by none else. A delegatee cannot further delegate his power unless the parent law permits it to do so. In the above context, the doctrine delegatus non potest delegare, that is, a delegatee cannot further delegate, comes into play. Thus, if a law confers power on the Central Government to make rules, it cannot further delegate that power to any other officer, unless the parent law itself gives authority to the Government to that effect.”

Ajay Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India : It has been held that, legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative functions and what can be delegated is the task of subordinate legislation which by very nature is the ancillary to the statute which delegates the power to make it effective. The courts cannot interfere in the discretion vested in the Legislature in determining the extent of the delegated power in a particular case.

Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Dhondu : It is held that, judicial or

quasi judicial power conferred by a statute cannot be delegated except when specifically permitted. When delegation of judicial power is permitted by a statute and is made, the delegation is absolute but delegate may yet remain in the administrative control of the authority delegating the power.

Colourable Legislation

• The doctrine of colourable legislation applies where the legislature is a particular case has transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers.
• A colourable legislation is that legislation, which shows that its enactment is well within the powers of the legislature which has enacted it, but in fact the legislature enacting that Act has transgressed its authority.
• If a law, on the face of it looks to be enacted by the competent legislature, but in fact the legislature is not competent to enact that law and has transgressed its power to enact that law is known as “Colourable Legislation”.
• The Indian Constitution has divided the different matters on which to make laws in three lists. The union, state and concurrent list constitute basically of matters constituting of matters to legislate by the union, state and by both.
• Colourable legislation comes into question when there is a question regarding the competency of legislative power between state and centre. It challenges the viability of an act based on the fact that if the legislature which passed it had the competency to pass an act on the said subject or not. If the legislature is not competent to make laws on the said subject then the law is considered to be ultra vires.
• The concept of colourable legislation can be simply explained by the principle‘What you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly’. This basically means that the legislature cannot enact a law which is not under its jurisdiction either directly or indirectly. When a legislature seeks enact a law which it cannot legislate directly then it cannot also do so indirectly. So the ultimate analysis is that colourable legislation indicates that while making the law the legislature transgressed the limits of its power.
• A Legislation can be said to be a ‘Colourable legislation’ if and only if a legislature having no power to legislate on a specific matter frames a legislature in such a manner as to make it seem to fall within its own jurisdiction.

In the case of K. C. G. Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa,the Orissa legislature had enacted the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax(Amendment) Act, 1950. This Act greatly increased the rate of tax on agricultural income. The main argument was that it was not a bonafide taxation law but a colourable legislation.

It had been argued that the main motive behind this act was to reduce by artificial means the net income of intermediaries so that compensation payable to them under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1952 was kept as low as possible. This was considered as a malafide intent of the state.

Holding the law valid, It was observed by the Supreme Court that the Act was regarding the taxing of agricultural income as described in the entry 46 of the state list of 7^th Schedule. The Supreme court concluded that the act might be unjust but it was under the jurisdiction of the State to make law regarding taxing of the agricultural income. This served as reason for its validity and thus the Act is not a colourable legislation.

In the case of K.T. Moopil v.State of Kerala AIR 1960 SC 512, the Travencore-Cochin Land Tax Act,1955, was declared to be unconstitutional in view of Art.14 And Art. 19(1)(f). It was found that a person making an income of Rs. 3100 per year was liable to pay Rs. 5400 under its operative provisions, so the Supreme court held that the provisions of the act were confiscatory in nature and reached conclusion that the act was a device adopted by legislature to confiscate the property of citizen’s tax.

The case of State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh stands as the only case where a law was declared invalid on the grounds of colourable legislation. The Bihar state had enacted the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, dealt with the abolition of landlord system, provided for payment of compensation on the basis of income accruing to the landlord by way of rent but in reality it did not lay down any such principle. So on the basis of this the Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950, the act was held invalid.

More Law Notes on Interpretation of Statutes –

• Interpretation of Statutes Notes – Presumption
• Interpretation of Statutes Notes – Strict Construction of Penal & Taxing Statutes
• Interpretation of Statutes Notes – Mandatory and Directory Enactments
• Interpretation of Statutes Notes – Repeal of Statutes