>Diwakar20112 at 14:54, 2 January 2021

2021-01-02T14:54:03Z

New page

{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2019}}
{{Multiple issues|
{{citation style|date=April 2010}}
{{globalize|date=July 2018}}
}}

The '''doctrine of colourability''' is the idea that when a [[legislature]] wants to do something that it cannot do within the constraints of its [[government]]'s [[constitution]], it colours the law with a substitute purpose, allowing it to accomplish its original goal.

==India==
Under the [[constitution of India]],<ref>Book Titled "Land and the Constitution in India" has a chapter titled "Empire and Commonwealth Origins of the Doctrine of Colorability" page 209 and "Colorability" and Zamindari Abolition Laws" page 211</ref> exclusive jurisdiction for the Union and the [[nation|State]] has been conferred regarding subject matters of [[legislation]]. This has been provided by Article 246,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://vlex.in/vid/maganbhai-ishwarbhai-patel-union-and-29692323 |title=Case nº 1528 of Appeal, January 09, 1969 (case Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel VS. Union Of India And Anr.) - Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel VS. Union Of India And Anr. - Supreme Court of India - Id 29692323 - vLex India |publisher=Vlex.in |accessdate=2014-03-16 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140316201401/http://vlex.in/vid/maganbhai-ishwarbhai-patel-union-and-29692323 |archivedate=March 16, 2014 }}</ref> which has demarcated the legislative [[jurisdiction]] of the [[Parliament of India|parliament]] and the [[state assembly|state assemblies]] by outlining the different subjects under List I for the Union, List II for the State, and List III for both, as given in the seventh schedule to the [[Constitution of India|Indian Constitution]]. As a consequence, conflicts of jurisdiction arise due to the fact there exist separate lists for the Union and the State to legislate upon. It often happens that strict constitutional boundaries are transgressed in legislation, inviting [[judicial review]] of the said [[Bill (law)|bill]]/[[act (law)|act]].

The [[Enactment of a bill|enactment of legislation]] is a function of the legislative power. In order to decide whether particular legislation is unconstitutional for breaching the constitutional limitations of [[Separation of powers|distribution of powers]], the Court examines the enactment with some [[strict scrutiny|strictness]]. The legislature can only make laws within its legislative competence. The legislative competence may be limited by specific List entries, or be restricted by other constitutional limitations and prohibitions. It cannot over-step the area of its legislative capability. A simple rule is followed in this regard, which is to find out if the legislating body had the power to legislate directly. If not, then the legislature cannot legislate indirectly. What it cannot do directly, it cannot attempt to do indirectly. Therefore, the substance of the legislation must be articulated for the purpose of determining whether what it enacted, it could really do.

The question of colourable legislation was fully discussed by the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] in K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Orissa, a decision which has been treated as settling the [[law]] on the subject. This ruling was confirmed in the Supreme Court decision of Sonapur Tea Co. v. Deputy Commissioner.

==Sources==
{{reflist}}
*http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/10th/case/027040.html (Page Not found)
*Edinger, Elizabeth: "Constitutional Law - The Doctrine of Colorability and Extraterritoriality", 63 Canadian Bar Review, (1985) 203

==External links==
*[https://www.jstor.org/pss/1284742 JSTOR.com talks about colorability]
*[http://openjurist.org/389/f3d/1117/woodruff-v-c-covington-md OpenJurist.com talks about colorability]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Doctrine Of Colourability}}
[[Category:Federalism]]
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]]

{{law-stub}}
{{India-law-stub}}
[[Category:Constitution of India]]

Doctrine of colourability - Revision history

>Diwakar20112 at 14:54, 2 January 2021