Constitution of India: Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

By: 
Vijay Sardana
Advocate, Delhi High Court

This doctrine is based on the principle that "what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly". 

In other words, if the constitution does not permit certain provision of a legislation, any provision that has the same effect but in a roundabout manner is also unconstitutional. This doctrine is found on the wider doctrine of "fraud on the constitution". A thing is Colourable when it seems to be one thing in the appearance but another thing underneath.

K C Gajapati Narayan Deo vs State of Orissa, AIR 1953 is a famous case that illustrates the applicability of this doctrine. In this case, SC observed that the constitution has clearly distributed the legislative powers to various bodies, which have to act within their respective spheres. These limitations are marked by specific legislatives entries or in some cases these limitations are imposed in the form of fundamental rights of the constitution.

Question may arise whether while enacting any provision such limits have been transgressed or not. Such transgression may be patent, manifest or direct. But it may also be covert, disguised, or indirect. It is to this later class of transgression that the doctrine of colourable legislation applies. In such case, although the legislation purports to act within the limits of its powers, yet in substance and in reality, it transgresses those powers. The transgression is veiled by mere pretense or disguise. But the legislature cannot be allowed to violate the constitutional prohibition by an indirect method. In this case, the validity of Orissa Agricultural Income Tax (Amendment) Act 1950 was in question. The argument was that it was not a bona fide taxation law but a colourable legislation whose main motive was to artificially lower the income of the intermediaries so that the state has to pay less compensation to them under Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952. SC held that it was not colourable legislation because the state was well within its power to set the taxes, no matter how unjust it was. The state is also empowered to adopt any method of compensation. The motive of the legislature in enacting a law is totally irrelevant.

A contrasting case is of K T Moopil Nair vs State of Kerala, AIR 1961. In this case, the state imposed a tax under Travencore Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955, which was so high that it was many times the annual income that the person was earning from the land. The SC held the act as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) in view of the fact that in the disguise of tax a person's property was being confiscated.

Similarly, in Balaji vs State of Mysore, AIR 1963, SC held that the order reserving 68% of the seats for students belonging to backward classes was violative of Article 14 in disguise of making a provision under Article 15(4).