Doctrines under the Constitution of India
- Legal Journey
- May 20
- 6 min read
The term “doctrine” has a lengthy etymological history and is generally of Latin origin. Latin has been the source for most legal terminology and expressions commonly used in the legal world. Derived from the Latin term ‘doctrina,’ the term “doctrine” denotes principles, teachings, or beliefs.
The term “doctrine” is commonly used in everyday language to refer to a system of beliefs, principles, and teachings on a specific subject matter or theme. It serves as a guideline, aid, or precept of law and is used to express opinions held by judges and other similar officials.
The Constitution of India serves as the foundation of India’s democratic system. It is the supreme law of the land and provides an overarching framework for governance, fundamental rights and duties for citizens, and the functioning of major institutions. However, the Constitution is not static; it is a living and dynamic document. Over time, India’s judiciary, particularly its Supreme Court, has interpreted its provisions in response to changing circumstances, leading to the development of various constitutional doctrines.
These principles act as guiding principles in interpreting constitutional provisions, resolving disputes, and maintaining a balance of power among the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Established through landmark judgments, they ensure that the Constitution remains relevant and responsive to societal demands while upholding its founding principles of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Table of Contents 💻
Important Doctrines under the Constitution of India
Basic Structure Doctrine
The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973 SC) established the Basic Structure Doctrine. This case is also known as the Fundamental Rights case in which a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Parliament enjoys ample powers to revise the Constitution but is precluded from changing its "Basic Structure."This doctrine operates as a mechanism against excessive or arbitrary amendments at the level of the Constitution. It is designed so as to keep certain essential provisions like supremacy of the Constitution, secularism, federalism, judicial review, rule of law, and separation of powers immune and intact from encroachment by legislation.Without it, a fleeting parliamentary majority might undercut the very identity of the Constitution. It upholds that the Constitution is supreme rather than the majority's will alone.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is utilised to settle conflicts involving legislatures of both the Union and the States. As the Legislative powers of both the Government under the Constitution is divided into 3 lists under the 7th Schedule—Union, State, and Concurrent—the chances of overlapping existence of a law enacted by either legislature exists. This doctrine aids in deciding the real nature and purpose of legislation.If a law is, in its "pith and substance," within the jurisdiction of the legislature that enacted it, it is valid even if it encroaches upon another's field, as an incidental encroachment.This principle was reaffirmed in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), in view of which the incidental encroachment is held to be valid subject to the condition that the dominant purpose of the legislation is within the power of the legislature to enact the same.
Doctrine of Colourable Legislation
This principle is based on the Latin saying “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum”—what is forbidden directly is forbidden indirectly as well.The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation stops legislatures from evading constitutionally fixed boundaries. Where a legislature is incompetent to pass a particular piece of legislation, it is not competent to mask or conceal it in an attempt to present it as valid. Where a piece of legislation is "colourably" within the powers of a legislature but substantively beyond its powers, it is subject to being invalidated.The doctrine guarantees transparency and candour in legislating and keeps legislatures in their constitutional limits.
Doctrine of Severability
According to Article 13 of the Constitution, any law contrary to fundamental rights is VOID up to the extent of its inconsistency. This gives rise to the Doctrine of Severability, according to which courts are entitled to sever only that portion of a law that is unconstitutional and leave the remainder of the legislation intact.
The rule is that if the sound part of the law is valid by itself, then it is still valid and enforceable and only its unconstitutional portion is voided. This prevents invalidating whole legislations based on partial invalidity. This doctrine defers to legislative intent and promotes constitutional supremacy.
Doctrine of Eclipse
The Doctrine of Eclipse is used in laws enacted prior to the introduction of the Constitution (i.e., pre-1950 laws). These laws do NOT become void ab initio if they contravene fundamental rights; rather, their operation is eclipsed or suspended.
The legislation is dormant and after amending or deleting the contradictory fundamental right, it comes alive and is once more enforceable.
This doctrine came into play in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955), when a pre-Constitution motor vehicles act that became unconstitutional came into effect upon amendment of the Constitution.
Deep Chand V. State of U.P. (1959 SC)
-The Supreme Court held that a post-constitutional law 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, subsequent amendments cannot revive it.
State of Gujarat V. Ambica Mills (1974 SC)
-The Supreme Court modified its previous views and held that a post-constitutional law, inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, was NOT nullity or non-existent in all cases and for all purposes.
-The ‘Doctrine of Absolute Nullity’ was NOT a universal rule and there were many exceptions to it.
-A post-constitutional law which took away or abridged the right conferred by Article 19, will operate as regards to non-citizens because Fundamental Rights were not available to non-citizens.
-However, such a law would become void or non-existent only against citizens because Fundamental Rights were conferred on them.
-Hence, Doctrine of Eclipse is applicable to Post-Constitutional Laws as well.
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
If two provisions within a statute or the Constitution seem to be contrary to each other, the courts invoke the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction. Instead of invalidating one provision, the court attempts to interpret both provisions so that they are compatible and work together.
The objective is to attain consistency, unity, and completeness in law. It is an essential tool for interpretation, especially in constitutional law, where provisions and competing rights need to be balanced.
This doctrine makes sure that any provision is neither rendered ineffective nor redundant unless strictly necessary.
Doctrine of Territorial Nexus
Article 245 of the Constitution of India asserts that a state legislature is empowered to enact laws for any part or the entire state. But, subject to specific circumstances, a law might acquire an extraterritorial application if there is a “territorial nexus” among the subject matter and the state.
The Doctrine of Territorial Nexus is particularly utilised in cases involving taxation, whereby the subject matter of the tax is situated outside the boundaries of a state but enjoys a strong connection to the taxing state.
Provided that the nexus is genuine and not illusory, the law is constitutionally valid.
Doctrine of Laches
The Doctrine of Laches is applied by courts to respond to any delay in filing a complaint or a petition. The courts never assist a person who is ignorant about his rights or who sleeps over his rights. This doctrine is an equitable defence or a reasonable doctrine. The origin behind this doctrine is in the maxim “Equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep upon their rights.”
If a person approaches the court after an unjustified delay and makes a claim for justice and that delay is prejudicing the adverse party, then courts have the right to reject his claim/relief. This doctrine is applied to ensure punctuality among litigants. Its objective is to prevent claims from overloading the judiciary.
Conclusion
The above doctrines are not just on paper, but these are instrumental tools of judicial review and interpretation of the Constitution. Through meticulous reasoning and several decades of judicial practice, these doctrines have enshrined the Constitution, curtailed legislative excesses, facilitated equilibrium among governmental branches, and promoted equality, fairness, and justice.
India’s growth socially, politically, and economically is going to keep these doctrines influencing India’s constitutional identity in its ongoing path. These keep the Constitution a living testament to people’s aspirations and not a mere piece of paper.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q) Why does the Basic Structure Doctrine hold significance? A) It prevents Parliament from undermining the fundamental identity of the Constitution, thereby acting as a check on authoritarian tendencies.
Q) How does the Pith and Substance Doctrine resolve disputes?
A) It identifies the dominant purpose of a law, allowing minor encroachments into another legislature's domain to be overlooked if the core subject is valid.
Q) Is it possible for only part of a law to be unconstitutional? A) Yes. The Doctrine of Severability ensures that only the unconstitutional portion is struck down, allowing the valid part to remain enforceable.
Q) What becomes of old laws that conflict with fundamental rights?
A) Such laws remain dormant under the Doctrine of Eclipse and can revive if the constitutional inconsistency is removed.
Q) Why is Harmonious Construction important? A) It helps interpret conflicting provisions in a way that upholds the unity and consistency of the legal system, avoiding unnecessary invalidation.
This Article is written by Tanaya Moholkar, a final year law student at Yashwantrao Chavan Law College, Pune.
Comments