Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

Introduction:

The Part XI of the Constitution of India explains the distribution of the necessary functions of administration, legislation and executive powers. Further, under Article 246 of our Constitution, the legislation i.e. the law-making powers are divided under the categories of the Union list, State list and Concurrent list. These lists serve as a line of distinction between the powers of the Centre, powers of the State and the powers that need to be shared between the two. This separation facilitates a simple division of powers between the three pillars of our democracy.

Power along with a clear division also requires a check to avoid its misuse. Hence, When the law-making bodies or the legislators act in a manner which falls outside their ambit of power, there does develop a certain need to check and forbid the malafide act, from causing harm to our Constitutional principles and dignity. There is an urgent need for a lawful provision to not let the legislator achieve or carry out an act, it is not rightfully equipped to. This need is fulfilled by the law of Colorable Legislation.

Need for Colourable Legislation

The doctrine of Considerable legislation is a check, put in place, by the Supreme Court of India, to define what kind of legislation is “coloured”. This doctrine checks the competency of the laws made in India. It checks, whether the law that has been made by a legislature, was done by that authority within the ambit of its power or not. In India, it acts like an important guiding doctrine which limits any sort of misuse of power at the hands of the legislatures in India. This doctrine was inspired by the maxim, “ That what you cannot do directly, cannot be done indirectly either.” Hence, this doctrine marks the legal compulsion on legislators to keep in mind to not to step out of their line of power.

History of Colourable Legislation

Before we dive into the famous case laws to understand this doctrine better, we need to understand the origin of this legislation. The doctrine of Colourable legislation is inspired by the legal maxim – “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo , prohibetur et per obiquum”. In layman terms, this maxim can be said to deliver the following meaning- if an act is prohibited directly, it is also prohibited indirectly. In the context of colourable legislation, this maxim applies to the lawmakers of our country to keep a check on their power.

In India, this doctrine is usually applied as a remedial law made to safeguard the Article 246 of the Indian Constitution, which demarcates the subject areas of law,  between the Union and the state government. The misuse of power by the legislators can either be overt or it can be covert. Misuse of power done by the lawmaking bodies in an overt fashion, leads to a direct violation of the Constitution and the law is further declared as ultra-vires. But in specific cases of misuse of power practised by the lawmakers in a covert fashion, the doctrine of colourable legislation safeguards our Constitution against a probable “fraud”.

 Important Cases

In the case of K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo and Ors. v. the State of Orissa^[1], the legislature of Orissa enacted a law called the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax ( Amendment) Act, 1950 which in turn increased the tax levied on income generated from the field of agriculture. It was argued in the Court of Law that this act was based on a malafide intention as the State was doing so to harm the intermediaries and lowering their compensation. Even though the Supreme Court agreed and accepted this, it still called the legislation valid under the doctrine of Colourable Legislation.  The Court further said that even though there is a possibility of the act being unjust to a set of people but since the agricultural income taxation fell under the category of State List, the legislator of Orissa had the power to make laws relating to it and hence on that basis, the law is valid.

This case till date serves as a classic case to understand the doctrine of Colourable legislation. Even though the act formed by the legislator of the state of Orissa appeared malafide and unjust but since the main substance of the act i.e. the tax law on the agricultural income fell under the ambit of the state of Orissa, the Court under the doctrine of Coloured Legislation, held the act as valid. The Court further conveyed by the way of this ruling that it was the main substance of the act and not the outward appearance of the act that is important when it comes to the declaration of a legislation as Coloured.

Another important case was the Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State Of Kerala^[2]. An act called the Travancore Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955 was held as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India as it violated Article 14^[3] of the Constitution of India.  As per the act, anyone who earned Rs. 3100 per annum was legally bound to pay Rs. 5400. The Court was quick to observe the violative provisions of this act and the malafide intentions of the legislators involved in the making of law. Thus, this act was declared as unconstitutional under the doctrine of Colourable Legislation by the Supreme Court Of India.

Example of Colourable Legislation

An extremely important case is the case of Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors^[4] which was the first case that solidified the power and the purpose of the doctrine of Colourable Legislation. The Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, held a law as void as it came under the category of Colourable legislation. The law in question was the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1850. The Supreme Court held that the law of Bihar Land Reforms was made to determine the payable compensation but in reality, it was a case of misuse of power as it was working against the people of Bihar by taking away any form of compensation available to them. Here we see how the doctrine of colourable legislation prevented a potential misuse of power by the legislators involved in the above-mentioned case.

 An Important Note

By now, we are clear about the need for this doctrine in India. It is important to note one aspect of this doctrine which is, that it is not concerned with the motives of the lawmakers behind a law. This doctrine is only limited to check the legal competency of a law. Thus, if the legislature has the rightful power to make a law or devise an amendment to an already existing law, then the motive behind the legislation is not of any relevance, in the context of this doctrine of Colourable Legislation.

Conclusion

The doctrine of Colourable Legislation is thus a very important piece of legislation. Even though the law-making bodies of our country are a prestigious body and are entrusted with nurturing the true spirit of democracy of our country, it still becomes imperative to find a way to accept the downsides of power which might include a misuse at a certain level. The doctrine we discussed, is definitely, a need of the hour. Law is what brings order in our society and the doctrine of colourable legislation makes sure that no lawmaking body works using its power in a malafide way.

References:

^[1] [1954] 1 SCR 1.     

^[2]  [1960] SC 512.

^[3] As per the Constitution of India, Article 14 entrusts all persons with equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the Indian territory.

^[4] [1952] SC 252.